Encouraging news [Archive] - Divine Cosmos Discussions

Petrus

10-22-2005, 05:43 PM

> Encouraging as far as SARS, and bird flu is concerned, but much too
political. Very anti Bush, anti government. Doesn't quite sound right to
me.

It's worth remembering that SARS didn't end up being the Black Death redux
that everyone was expecting, and I now have fairly serious doubts that the
avian influenza flap is going to cause major problems either. Despite my
initial fear of it, I've done some research on it since, and tend to believe
that its dangers are largely academic/theoretical. Although it is true that
the disease has had a 66-70% human mortality rate, it is also worth
remembering that there have only been 120 cases worldwide, thus causing me
to suspect that it isn't enormously contagious in humans, despite having
spread throughout the avian population. It spreads via an aerosol
(airborne) vector, but again, the virus is far more accustomed to avian
(bird) hosts, and the additional mutation allowing it to jump to humans
still has not stabilised, meaning that humans won't automatically become
infected with it in every case. The virus also is not particularly
robust...handwashing will kill it if it is present on the skin, and making
sure that infected poultry is well-cooked will kill it there as well.

It could well cause a fairly major ecological disaster among the planet's
bird populations, since it has no problem spreading there, but I would tend
to believe that there is only around a 25-30% chance that it will cause a
major incident among humans. That is, in it's natural form anyway...it is
possible that someone [moderator snipped specific reference]could hire
people to attempt to engineer it into a weaponised/more contagious form, in
order to be able to claim a plague as justification [snip] still wanting to
implement...but aside from that type of scenario,
as I said it is not likely to cause major problems.

Dana

10-22-2005, 10:11 PM

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=lcX7IdYMTDPAheQnEJV5A9q0P7Rc72DSjCvUzD hadYlWwTBWahDMizgiDBA_NY44W7sZ4qORrkiIoroQpPM), "congahead2000" <wolftracks@b...> wrote:
> The previous message (Sept 22 ) made the contact loose alot of
> credibility to me. Way political. Real big contrast with higher
> density info like the Q'uo readings.
>

I have a very strong feeling that these "Messages from Matthew" are
totally fictitious. That is just the vibe that I get when I read
them. I don't even waste my time with it anymore...but that's just my
opinion. Quite honestly, I don't think we should even be discussing
that contact on this forum though.

Neil Haddon

10-23-2005, 01:44 AM

From a slightly different tack - and from the other side of the
Atlantic, Lynne McTaggart (http://www.wddty.co.uk/index.asp )
wrote Thusday:

"AVIAN FLU: Don't panic (or you'll get it)

Britain's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson did his civic
duty last weekend and went on national television to tell the
nation about avian flu. We face a massive epidemic, and 750,000
people could die, he sternly told a quaking populace. In the
same breath, he urged the nation 'not to panic'.
With people like Sir Liam at the helm, we're more likely to die
of fright than of avian flu, a phenomenon that is literally true.

Sir Liam's pronouncements coincided with the news of the death
of psychiatrist Colin McEvedy, who established that some
epidemics are entirely the result of fear, with no physical
cause.
McEvedy's suspicions were first roused when he worked at the
Royal Free Hospital in 1955. While he was there, an epidemic
swept the hospital, affecting 300 nursing staff, 200 of whom were
confined to a hospital bed. After many years of follow-up,
McEvedy was able to confirm that the epidemic was entirely the
result of hysteria, triggered by fear of polio, which was
prevalent in the 1950s. He was also able to identify other
hysteria-based epidemics, including several that broke out at two
girls' schools. Most sufferers' symptoms included depression,
fatigue, and vague neurological signs - not dissimilar to those
for avian flu, in fact. Some also reported paralysis and sensory
disturbances.
Read into it what you will.
(Sources: British Medical Journal, 1970; 1: 7-11, and British
Medical Journal, 1970; 1: 11-15).

SARS: Another epidemic that wasn't

Talking about health scares, do you remember SARS, the great
epidemic of 2003 that was going to end civilization as we know
it? In all, it killed around a thousand people, but then the
annual flu season in the UK kills around 12,000 of our more
infirm citizens every year. One study has tracked a group of 93
SARS victims. Of these, around a third are still suffering from
symptoms, and have impaired lung function. Not great for them,
for sure, but all of this hardly adds up to a pandemic.
(Source: Chest, 2005; 128: 1393-1400). "

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself"

Love.
Neil

E. Drake

10-23-2005, 06:09 AM

Petrus <petrus@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=GOz_xNpinyTgakPbiASrImT3H2PpTwaBWuDSz7 k6jcDKQRVUaSDslKXuLhhbhldLYYW2VggEzL2o)> wrote:
> Encouraging as far as SARS, and bird flu is concerned, but much too
political. Very anti Bush, anti government. Doesn't quite sound right to
me.

It's worth remembering that SARS didn't end up being the Black Death.......there
have only been 120 cases worldwide, thus causing me
to suspect that it isn't enormously contagious in humans.....

__________________________________________________ _________

I have attepmted to speak to this subject more than once in an effort to allay
fears or concerns, or the very least, question. That I am a physician is of less
consequence, but perhaps that I am, I may speak to the following with at least a
degree of professional curiosity, and thus may stimulate thought process to an
altogether other thought on this subject as relates to the Loo and STO with
specificity to this matter.

If natural catastrophe may be spoken to, as here so oft is, as manipulated for
gain, does it seem such a stretch then that so too might this? The following is
not a scientific principle herein. Far more simple in fact. So much more simple
indeed. It is a principle of the world. It has in fact been stated that this
principle "makes the world go round". Just follow the 'money' and/or 'the power'
of the who's behind any given situation, then always ask as a simple axiom, who
stands to gain?

http://www.mercola.com/blog/2005/oct/19/rumsfeld_to_profit_from_avian_flu_hoax

Faithfully,

Drake

---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

Petrus

10-23-2005, 09:17 AM

> If natural catastrophe may be spoken to, as here so oft is, as manipulated
for gain, does it seem such a stretch then that so too might this? The
following is not a >scientific principle herein. Far more simple in fact. So
much more simple indeed. It is a principle of the world. It has in fact been
stated that this principle "makes >the world go round". Just follow the
'money' and/or 'the power' of the who's behind any given situation, then
always ask as a simple axiom, who stands to gain?

Realising this has been the primary thing that has enabled me to dump most
of my fear about the current global scenario. We need to keep in mind two
things:-

a) There is no disaster these days, major or minor, that is not
deliberately engineered by the STS crew.
b) The entire reason why they're doing this is because they're losing, and
they know it. These incidents are all designed with the singular purpose of
getting people back into the old political fold/system...back under control.
It ain't working. Too many of us are sick of the old routine and want
something better...and people need to be encouraged by realising that any of
us who've wanted something better than the crap that's gone on for the last
100 years or so are going to get it...as DW and Ra both say, life on Earth
is about to improve on a genuinely massive scale. The sewer dwellers and
the fat cats can kick and scream about it all they want, but there's nothing
they can ultimately do about it.

So, all any of us need to do is weather this last current STS temper tantrum
for another 10 years or so, and after that we will no longer have to worry
about it. At that point, we can get on with enjoying our lives and
appreciating technological progress without the previous political
subjugation and rape of the planet that we've had to contend with so far.
Jesus mentions in Revelations that everyone who is able to stand firm during
the current period will be so busy enjoying what comes next that we won't
have time to remember how bad this period was in hindsight. ;-)

E. Drake

10-23-2005, 04:41 PM

Petrus <petrus@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=-pt9SCg4nctWvSM9bqEdX3WxVgVMSRn1vtu18ZUETL_F66SI9Gb CbvmNcm73OMRuy1oCNfLPdD_ccHfy)> wrote:
".....There is no disaster these days, major or minor, that is not deliberately
engineered by the STS crew.
b) The entire reason why they're doing this is because they're losing, and
they know it. These incidents are all designed with the singular purpose of
getting people back into the old political fold/system...back under control.

__________________________________________________ ____________

Hi Petrus,

Although I understand your deeper meaning and intent, I offered this link on the
avian flu discussion, and the one before that from CNN (with a special nod to
Chris), as a means of offering other possible thought and question, not as
proof, nor as effort of promoting blame on an STS agenda, nor any one member of
the their crew.

Certainly the STS crew is 'the bad guy'. The problem is we don't always know the
what's what with which which. There is always plenty a money to be made
supplying the cause with the tools of the trade. This is profiteering. To
suggest that all disaster however, major or minor, is all deliberately
"engineered" by STS is perhaps overly stated? No?

Science and nature remain a true phenomena of true changes truly transpiring.
These changes are taking place throughout our entire solar system, not just here
on little Terra Frima. These changes certainly are not engineered throughout the
entire known solar system by STS dudes with deep pockets. God help us. Then
we'd really have a serious problem requiring many more acts of Congress to save
us. And God help us more were it up to them to save not just us, but the known
universe, given they can't even balance the budget.

Natural disaster certainly must occur. This is nature. It's just an is and a
must. Were it not for plate shifts and earthquakes, the world would explode as a
means of releasing pressures otherwise. Earthquakes, therefore it can be argued,
save us. This is nature.

Although indeed, there may, as possibility, be some manipluation, it stands more
to reason that the majority of disasters are indeed probably more that of the
natural phenomena flavor, based more on our co-creative responsibilities, and
not simply at the feet of the bad guy STS agenda. I would offer suggestion to
possibility of dis-empowering them in our respective minds as greater effect, as
much as we would the very disasters we speak to so very much of here. It would
soften the change, but not the end run consequence of the greater change(s) that
must run their course.

Faithfully,

Drake

---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

Petrus

10-23-2005, 10:03 PM

>supplying the cause with the tools of the trade. This is profiteering. To
suggest that all disaster however, major or minor, is all deliberately
"engineered" by STS is >perhaps overly stated? No?

You're right...I actually thought about that after I authored the post.
Although I will admit, whenever anything major happens, my first instinct
now is actually to suspect engineering before assuming a natural event,
mainly because there's been so many of them lately that IMHO the degree of
frequency more than anything else stretches the bounds of credibility
somewhat.

> Science and nature remain a true phenomena of true changes truly
transpiring. These changes are taking place throughout our entire solar
system, not just here on >little Terra Frima. These changes certainly are
not engineered throughout the entire known solar system by STS dudes with
deep pockets. God help us. Then

I should have thought of that. I did read DW's stuff on hyperdimensional
physics, although admittedly about the only element of it I understood was
where he says that the entire galaxy is moving to 4D, not just us...Made me
wonder if any of the other planets are inhabited in the higher densities.
Didn't Ra say that Venus at least was?

E. Drake

10-24-2005, 04:57 PM

Petrus <petrus@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=jkQVo1Bx5_LkpYsNpinKMAImkbYoDyL7mAucRE P8lgN2yV7mnQFfIVM3jJyZ_8m6z4XMbWqcyuycwrl--A)> wrote:
I did read DW's stuff on hyperdimensional physics, although admittedly about the
only element of it I understood was where he says that "the entire galaxy" is
moving to 4D, not just us...Made me wonder if any of the other planets are
inhabited in the higher densities. Didn't Ra say that Venus at least was?

__________________________________________________ ______________

Hello again Petrus,

Interesting. You state: I did read DW's stuff on hyperdimensional physics,
although admittedly about the only element of it I understood was where he says
that "the entire galaxy" is moving to 4D"

To your comment/understanding with regard to "the entire galaxy" is moving to
4D".

H-m-m-m...Might you refer me to this section of "DW's stuff" you speak to?

You may wish to make reference to the study guide as a quick source of info on
the Loo specifically wherein to your 2 part question you ask: (1)"Made me wonder
if any of the other planets are inhabited in the higher densities?(2)Didn't Ra
say that Venus at least was?"

To the 1st part of your 2 part question: are other planets inhabited in the
higher densities? : Your question actually neutralizes your first comment and
(mis)understanding of the "entire galaxy" moving to 4D. So, you've actually
answered yourself and cleared the whole matter as to your understanding (see
it?)

Then to your 2nd question: Yes, The Loo material of Ra states that the Ra group
specifically, having previously been in 3D incarnation on Venus,

achieved 4th density as a Venusian group social memory complex.

To the first part of your question: are other planets inhabited in the higher
densities?

1.EACH GALAXY IS CREATED BY A DIFFERENT LOGOS

2.This planetary Logos is a strong Logos, creating approximately 250 billion of
your star systems for Its creation.

* my comment: Herein lies the language confusion.

1.Star system (same as Solar System / e.g. our one sun and nine planets
revolving around our one sun)

2.Star Systems plural (250 billion solar systems=galaxy)

3.Galactic Creator(created 250 Billion star systems/solar systems/ e..g.. Milky
Ways)

4.Galaxy ( e.g.. one Milky Way -- but we in "earth language" refer to this as in
fact a "star system". Ra does not). Confusing, but not unclear.

5.Solar System ( e.g. our one sun and nine planets revolving around our one sun)

6.Planetary Logos (same thing as The Galactic Creator or Logos in this
desciptor above. But a Logos may be a Galactic creator creating many star
systems/solar systems , as did ours (250 Billion), or a Logos may just create a
single solar system instead.

*Now , this Logos which is a Galactic Level Creator of 250 Billion star
systems/solar systems is not to be confused with a sub-logos:

1.Sub logos - a star- a planetary level creator of planets,

2.But a Logos may instead simply create only a simple solar stem of planets
making it's creation the same as that of a sub-logs star creator.

But this is not to be confused with a

1.Sub-sub logos which is a planet. Thus the term planetary creator is not to be
confused with a sub-logos (star) creator of planets or to the term sub-sub logos
which is a planet.

Confusing aint it? These interchanging terms. may be throwing you as
interchanging definition's, particularly as is normally defined by our earthly
language( English at that) superimposed on RA's "all is one language(Universal
at that)".. A galaxy may have as many as 250 billion suns, with each sun having
several planets,. Multiply 250 billion suns by "X" number of planets, and that
makes for a whole Lotta, Lotta, bunches and bunches of many, many planets.

3.THE SPACE NEAR THE CENTER OF THE GALAXY IS AT A MORE ADVANCED PHASE

4.The spiritual density or mass of those towards the center of the galactic
spiral is due to the varying timelessness states during which the planetary
spheres may coalesce

All Galaxies(an infinite number in existence),of which we are one(The Milky
Way), are comprised of many many many suns(this galaxy having 250 billion)thus
comprised of many many solar systems,containing many planets,etc etc etc, which
each have densities, presumably 1-8, with 8 being nearer the center, and more
sub densities yet, and more sub-sub-sub-sub densities within each density yet .
Earth is moving to 4D, yes, but other planets of this galaxy have already
achieved this status, and presumably others have achieved yet higher density
status yet. Perhaps consequently, we as Earth are indeed the laggards of just
this solar system, or even this galaxy. It would explain perhaps why all the
E.T. fuss, their interest and activity here of late. Might it be we're holding
the train up in this solar system, if not the galaxy in consequence, so to
speak, and as it were? The show could've gone faster were it not for us? We're
being nudged and begged to hurry it up, or assisted in the
transition if not, as we might need it as a result?

Now, your question does however make for an altogether more interesting point
and other questions within your question. Has it been previously discussed,
taught or made mention?

The question brought up in your question is this:

1.Given that any planetary group, i.e. social memory complex , having achieved
the next grade and/or density, may such group do so without a sub-sub logos
planetary consensus moving with it simultaneously? Certainly to the inverse, we
have been educated with respect to the Loo that a planet may indeed do so
without the consensus consciousness as prerequisite of it's inhabitants not
having achieved social memory complex status. Case in point...us....here....now.

Clearly, some of us ain't goin along for the 4D ride with the sub-sub logos
planetary consciousness tapping it's proverbial impatient big-foot in wait. As
such, some will presumably be recycled, dispatched, and redeposited to a
suitable other 3D planetary environment , and into a lifestyle with which
we/they have grown accustomed to. They shall be "displaced spouses" of a sort,
receiving a divorce notice from Gia, and, who needing to get on with her life,
wishes to see other people as a result, having outgrown us/them (whichever the
case may be). Without residence, the displaced spouse may qualify all over again
for "first time home-buyers" status according to the displaced home buyer
spousal section in the guidelines as established within the manual for discount
homesteading rights in this the star system's galaxy guidelines to residential
leases, purchases/mortgages, and/or sub-sub-sub letting and rentals in general,
not to be confused with time-sharing of the wanderer's
sub-sub-sub section agreement.

But, all seriousness aside, the question stands: May a social memory complex of
people outgrow a planetary sub-sub logos surpassing and moving beyond the
planetary consciousness, in which case the social memory complex gives notice to
the sub-sub logos planetary consciousness of imminent divorce decree for
irreconcilable difference due to it being the laggard, having stayed out all
night, and drinking with the other planets, and chasing lessor social memory
complex chicks around at all hours of the night/day?

The second question: Might Petrus have read that this solar system (not galaxy)
is moving to 4D , and that as such all planets in this solar system are of 3D?

I'd look up the second, knowing the first may not have answer, but only
interesting conjecture ... but have confused me as much as Petrus at this point
and plead the third to the second in lessor knowledge of the first. If in error
of the forgoing, I stand awaiting correction to all.

Whew...faithfully,

Drake

---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

Petrus

10-24-2005, 09:46 PM

> Interesting. You state: I did read DW's stuff on hyperdimensional physics,
although admittedly about the only element of it I understood was where he
says that "the entire galaxy" is moving to 4D"

Typo...I meant the solar system. ;-)

E. Drake

10-25-2005, 08:11 AM

Hi Petrus,
Yours has been one of the more interesting posts to recent date. It has actually
been one "Of" the RA material " specifically, rather than so many other "Non-RA
Communicated Material" discussions(although interesting).

Wouldn't it be more interesting if we truly put more focus, as have you in this
question, in a classroom sense, an attention "In The RA Material" as a study
specifically?

It brings up learning, discrepancies in terms, and Loo dialog as a point and
learning deeper into the Loo.

Indeed to that point then: I assumed you might have meant "solar system" , as
you can see on my closing statement. But its an easy conundrum of confusion to
make as Ra uses the term solar system/star system in the same context that we
earthlings use the term galaxy, as is mentioned in my response.

But what is new to me as a question, that I pose to you and/or the group
remains:
1. Is in fact the "entire solar system" in 3D, no exceptions i.e. all nine
planets? This means none are in 1st or 2nd, much less 4th or 5th etc.

Although perhaps in the material( Loo), I do not recall so specifically? Please
help with the reference section
.
2. Second question was: May a group - a people (social memory complex) outgrow a
planet, verses the inverse as in earths case wherein clearly the planet has
outgrown the group?

I have assumed that in the case of Venus, in the time of Ra, as you alluded also
to in your question, that the planet and the people grew simultaneously. If
indeed this is so, then Venus is the exception in this solar system, which then
may presume there are other exceptions in this system as well also not in 3D,
meaning then the solar system may be varied, and as such, the solar system is
not all moving into 3D simultaneously?

Great question. I shall eagerly await responses.
Thank you Petrus.

Drake

Petrus <petrus@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=R8BOzC8Mb8Id6YMGRt7RRaNGWGAJ4ORDoIXM3p yIpjrB2vy1kwUOR2Sjq5ymDvfbjNqsd_5QUPla8g)> wrote:
> Interesting. You state: I did read DW's stuff on hyperdimensional physics,
although admittedly about the only element of it I understood was where he
says that "the entire galaxy" is moving to 4D"

Typo...I meant the solar system. ;-)

SPONSORED LINKS
Astronomy gift Astronomy magazine Material science Astronomy telescope Astronomy
star name Astronomy book

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "asc2k" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
asc2k-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=K4k2-QLcobPEdoQUu3ExhAmLYfT1pv6xkdYqJN7R0RBFlDSt-GfiWIm8XWBwQmU_n8vXULuQLcvClD_wozadOfFufkoFxEV6TN5 v)

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------

---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

Elmer

10-25-2005, 11:54 AM

--- "E. Drake" <truelyndeeply@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=1PoBh2V3Z0xyEYvtzYfwWrlGcO89lEYaaNIZ30 kA3f4omScMKMnSV9SBAYKtGqk1jZMBpW9uaBooQeaRSFPNTes)> wrote:

> 1. Is in fact the "entire solar system" in 3D, no
> exceptions i.e. all nine planets? This means none
> are in 1st or 2nd, much less 4th or 5th etc.
>
I believe David's material indicates that the solar
system as a whole is moving physically into 4d - as
regular as the movement of a clock. So it's a matter
of our physical position in relation to the galactic
plane, therefore the entire solar system would be
affected.

He also provide much evidence to this in the increased
activity of all bodies in our solar system, not just
the earth.

> 2. Second question was: May a group - a people
> (social memory complex) outgrow a planet, verses the
> inverse as in earths case wherein clearly the planet
> has outgrown the group?
>
The LL Research reading from January 20, 2002 gives
some good information on this. It's in response to a
question after the main reading so it's towards the
bottom of the page.

Elmer
"It's all about the love"

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

Petrus

10-25-2005, 01:01 PM

> I have assumed that in the case of Venus, in the time of Ra, as you
alluded also to in your question, that the planet and the people grew
simultaneously. If indeed >this is so, then Venus is the exception in this
solar system, which then may presume there are other exceptions in this
system as well also not in 3D, meaning then >the solar system may be varied,
and as such, the solar system is not all moving into 3D simultaneously?

I heard it said once that we should not assume that simply because a planet
appears uninhabited from the point of view of our density, that that means
that it actually *is* uninhabited on all levels. Given such, I would tend
to suspect that the other planets in the solar system thus perhaps do have
their own civilisations, simply on a different density to our own.

lottacontinuum

10-26-2005, 02:53 AM

> I heard it said once that we should not assume that simply because a planet
> appears uninhabited from the point of view of our density, that that means
> that it actually *is* uninhabited on all levels. Given such, I would tend
> to suspect that the other planets in the solar system thus perhaps do have
> their own civilisations, simply on a different density to our own.

This is how I understand it as well. Everything that is, from planets to humans
etc. exists
in all dimensions simultaneously (like holographic) and differs only in which
dimension the
conciousness has realized itself as being. Or on what level you experience
yourself as "I" at
the moment.
I have separated myself with seeing myself as "3D Human", more self-realized
parts of
myself try to contact me and tell me that when I could only move on to a bigger
perspective and melt back in with my higher dimensional parts, I could see the
unity with
them and from their perspective move higher and higher in vibration until the
"thought" that is me, has come back to god and closes the circle.

I don`t know if anyone has read the "mists of avalon" (I hope that`s the title
in english) by
Marion Zimmer Bradley. For me, Avalon is existing on earth, but in a different
vibration
and therefore invisible to us, although some may raise their vibration in order
to see it and
go there. The same with the Fairy-Kingdom or places like Shamballah or Agarthi
etc.
The Lady of the Lake, the Fairyqueen, Morgaine are all one being (a subdivision
of the
great all-being as we all perceive one another as being seperate subdivisions
somehow as
long as we have returned in the all Oneness). Maybe different archetypes within
us, that
are developed differently and therefore have a wide range in which dimension
within
ourself they reside momentarily. The ultimate goal ist to develop each
archetype`s
conciousness and awareness of itself untill they are all in the highest
vibration which is
being one with god again.

But this brings up a question in me about the earth`s shift into 4D. I
understand it in the
way, that the earth-being gets aware of itself being in 4D and moves her "I"
presence to
that level, and from there projecting an environment with her thoughts (cause
she is the
subsublogos) that allows us to live there, as soon as we have realized ourselves
as being
4D and therefore created our 4D bodies with our consciousness.
Therefore a 3D earth will in my understanding always exist parallel to the 4D
one. This 3D
earth will be able to continue providing development space for entities
mastering 3D live,
if the 3D humankind will not destroy itself and their invironment here in 3D,
which they
will probably do, as our technical progress has gone to far compared to our
spiritual
development. therefore the odds are more likely that 3D entities will have to
move on to
different planets. But still, 3D will still be existing, maybe not suitable for
lifeforms, just
what happened to Venus or Mars.
It seems that everytime a planet is raising it`s consciouness together with part
of its
population, that the remaining entities who didn`t make it on time for
graduation, destroy
their 3D environment and have to go elsewhere.

What happens to entities that surpass their homeplanets development in
consciousness
and move e.g. in 5D or 6D? I think it is possible, but they have to move to
higher
developed planetary systems as the earth`5D or 6D lies still within the
unconscious parts
of gaia. They already do exist, but are within gaia`s unconsciousness and are
therefore
not projected outward.
Same with humans. Some archetypes that are within me and that are developed
already
have moved into my higher consciousness and some are still in my
subconsciousness. As
soon as they have all developed to a certain degree (e.g 4D conciousness) the
perception
of myself as an entity moves to 4D and I see myself as 4D entity. This for my
understanding is when my ascension will take place. When I would be faster then
earth I
would have to go elsewhere to find a finished 4D environment or align myself in
a
vibration like Avalon and live there. I guess worlds like Avalon are primarily
4D, but still
with some of Gaia`s archetypes underdeveloped. The full development will be
reached
some time in the future, probably around 2012. Then all the different vibrations
(Avalon,
Fairy-Kingdom, our world) will smooth into one 4D world.

The different archetypes can be described e.g. with the zodiac circle and
therefore one
might get a clue on which archtype one is working primarily in this life by
looking at one`s
horoscope. An interesting clue that I found is homeopathy as well. I think that
there are
archetypal relations to certain homeopathic remedies that correlate to your
constitution
and can also be found via astrology. These remedies help to balance the
archetypes an
bring fouth the issues one has to take a closer look at in order to develop
further.

Actually I think I have gotten a bit far off and I don`t know if anyone
understands what I
wrote, as it is difficult for me to put things in words in my native language
german and
therefore can only guess how this comes across in english. It was just a try to
put some
ideas in words that came across my mind this morning.

Lotta

E. Drake

10-26-2005, 10:46 AM

lottacontinuum <lottacontinuum@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=H7hPrRhoc6vrpHpi_OjCFb1jCYE3EYUANzE_kY 6Ku0v5rc4cHY3yvJcMfwUEP2owx7O-fE6cS4OKaZ9L-ms)> wrote:

.....Everything that is, from planets to humans etc. exists in all dimensions
simultaneously (like holographic) and differs only in which dimension the
consciousness has realized itself as being. Or on what level you experience
yourself as "I" at the moment.

.....it is difficult for me to put things in words in my native language German
and
therefore can only guess how this comes across in English. It was just a try to
put some
ideas in words that came across my mind this morning.

Lotta

__________________________________________________ __________________

Dear Lotta, (Mein Lieber Lotta),

Gutenmorgen mein Fruend. Your English is wonderful, sehr , sehr gut, werklich,
your thoughts profound, your meanings clear, and your points well thought out.
No need to ever question or apologize again for your language. Having grown up
in Switzerland and Germany, and attending schools there, I would like to think I
am conversive in your native tongue, but so too also understand the difficulties
of attempting to communicate in anothetr language as well.

Clearly you have read much of the Loo material as you have other reference
sources as well. It makes such a difference in the dialogs, given that the Loo
material is presumably the point of this site and of discussion (even though it
seems so oft not to be).

Your speculation and/or understanding to the material is an interesting one in
that it offers:

1.A position of simultaneous densities (4th/5th as example, coexisting with 3rd)
...and on one planet ....not simply sub-densities within densities? See the
difference?

This 3rd/4th/5th coexistence has to my knowledge never been mentioned with
respect to the RA Material, but it might certainly be in keeping with it.I like
the thought, and it may indeed even be contained therein by inference, in a
sense.

I do object to "personal blended introduction" of one's "personal"
thought/assumption as addendums to the RA Material. as it smakes of
presumptuousness to make addendum's to RA ( no?) , channeled or otherwise, nor
the introductions of another's writings ( equally presumptuous, no?) into the Ra
Material. Specualtion and question is not an addendum.

Your question/dialog may be contained in as much as densities within densities
(sub-densities) are definitively made mention to. Your point stands to reason
as well as to another point however. Certainly 1st and 2nd density co exits in
simultaneity with us in 3rd. This is taught. Our own bodies are prime example
containing all three densities cohabiting in the same 'dorm room' so to speak.
Why would not then the 4th or 5th "Be Here Now" also in 3rd as to RA's teaching
(?) but not in awareness of/by 3rd, as you question?

One might assume that 1st certainly is not in awareness of 3rd, but coexists
regardless. Depending on the grade of 2nd (dog/cat), 2nd is more aware of 3rd,
but presumably lower grades of 2nd are not.Perhaps so too is higher grade of 3rd
aware of 4th/5th (here and now) and as such 4th may already be "here and now"
and not in some distant future to be awaited for.

This being so, the question remains,

1.Is the solar system (it's planets), as we in 3rd perceive it, only existing in
3rd to other 3rd, and with a new twist to the question now, always remaining so,
even on another level after having graduated to 4th?

2.Will 1st, 2nd and 3rd cohabit with 4th when the 4th shift occurs, as is
presently seen with 1st and 2nd cohabiting with 3rd?

Excellent question and thought Herr Lota.

Vielen Dank (Thank you very much)

Faithfully,

Drake

---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

lottacontinuum

10-26-2005, 01:25 PM

Dear Drake,

> Gutenmorgen mein Fruend. Your English is wonderful, sehr , sehr gut, werklich,
your
thoughts profound, your meanings clear, and your points well thought out. No
need to
ever question or apologize again for your language. Having grown up in
Switzerland and
Germany, and attending schools there, I would like to think I am conversive in
your native
tongue, but so too also understand the difficulties of attempting to communicate
in
anothetr language as well.

Thanks for the compliments (my ego yearned for that today and allways finds a
way to get
its way)

> Clearly you have read much of the Loo material as you have other reference
sources as
well. It makes such a difference in the dialogs, given that the Loo material is
presumably
the point of this site and of discussion (even though it seems so oft not to
be).

To be honest I only read the DWs Study guide of the LoO about a year ago. Last
week I
read Carla Rueckert`s channeling Handbook and now I just got started on LoO Book
1.
Shortly after I read the Study Guide last year, I was led to a quite interesting
experience
concernig a channeling group with a probably very mixed contact (at least that
is the
conclusion I came to, after reading Carla`s channeling Handbook). I was able to
watch how
the whole group fell apart in distrust and accusations of each other, which
prepared me to
much better understand some of the LoO than I would have one year ago. So the
little
pause was used effectively. But now the material has found me again and I am
wondering
why it is so relatively unknown, compared to other channeled material that is by
far not as
profound?

> Your speculation and/or understanding to the material is an interesting one in
that it
> This 3rd/4th/5th coexistence has to my knowledge never been mentioned with
respect
to the RA Material, but it might certainly be in keeping with it.I like the
thought, and it
may indeed even be contained therein by inference, in a sense.
>
>
>
> I do object to "personal blended introduction" of one's "personal"
thought/assumption
as addendums to the RA Material. as it smakes of presumptuousness to make
addendum's to RA ( no?) , channeled or otherwise, nor the introductions of
another's
writings ( equally presumptuous, no?) into the Ra Material. Specualtion and
question is not
an addendum.

I hope it doesn`t look like I am trying to put addendums to the Ra Material. My
knowledge
of it is yet not very deep, if it ever will be. I read a lot of books during the
last few years
and I am not good at remembering where a certain thought comes from or if it has
formed
inside my own being, it all sums up to a big mess in my head, but I try always
to put in
lots of "in my opinion", "I think"... etc. so the reader can see that it is just
my own
speculations and has nothing to do with the original material.

> One might assume that 1st certainly is not in awareness of 3rd, but coexists
regardless.
Depending on the grade of 2nd (dog/cat), 2nd is more aware of 3rd, but
presumably lower
grades of 2nd are not.Perhaps so too is higher grade of 3rd aware of 4th/5th
(here and
now) and as such 4th may already be "here and now" and not in some distant
future to be
awaited for.

> 2.Will 1st, 2nd and 3rd cohabit with 4th when the 4th shift occurs, as is
presently seen
with 1st and 2nd cohabiting with 3rd?

That is a very interesting point there with the correlations to 1st and 2nd
density! As
above so below, so maybe I find something when I read the LoO now very carefully
that
goes in that direction.

> Excellent question and thought Herr Lota.

Oh, I am "Frau" Lotta by the way ;-)

> Vielen Dank (Thank you very much)

I thank you Drake!

Lotta

E. Drake

10-26-2005, 05:00 PM

lottacontinuum <lottacontinuum@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=AkS3FCuYxI-Um0KTxWf9wG8iznBI-JcaZ_sR_k-2dKMZE2pXG2vSTW2teOrngE3k_jSo4et3N1-obXbuWA)> wrote:
I hope it doesn`t look like I am trying to put addendum's to the Ra Material.

__________________________________________________ _____________

Lieber "Frau Lotta" ( Dear Ms. Lotta)

Thank you for clearing the gender bender confuion up.

As to your comment on my comment to addendums: No, I certainly do not think you
are making addendums in any manner. Yours was an interesting question indeed.
Questions are very good as they foster learning and growth. It brought up yet
more question again.

I do very much object in principle to the "adding to" of what RA gave, as if
though they said it. It changes considerably the flavor to what in fact was
said. See? It is presumptuous, but always the case with a truth. I am happy to
read and learn RA, and discuss RA, and dialog on the RA Material, but it bends
it when it becomes "distorted" by other influencing manner, as has been seen
herein, but it is to be expected. This is the way of it.

Dankerschon noch ein mal (Thank you again)

Drake

---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

10-26-2005, 08:47 PM

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=VrHxo6BdMQW6biLmj2BjazOwx7ehjYEzalEAT5 I1BcROLrc-OqfrIhCJEt7iJBsGaG7vNh4vg4JgEdvv7Ds), "E. Drake" <truelyndeeply@y...> wrote:
> But what is new to me as a question, that I pose to you and/or the
group remains:
> 1. Is in fact the "entire solar system" in 3D, no exceptions i.e.
all nine planets? This means none are in 1st or 2nd, much less 4th or
5th etc.
> Although perhaps in the material( Loo), I do not recall so
specifically? Please help with the reference section.
> 2. Second question was: May a group - a people (social memory
complex) outgrow a planet, verses the inverse as in earths case
wherein clearly the planet has outgrown the group?

from Book 1m Session 16, 1/31/81
Questioner: How many inhabited planets are there in our galaxy?
Ra: I am Ra. We are assuming that you intend all dimensions of
consciousness or densities of awareness in this question.
Approximately 1/5 of all planetary entities contain awareness of one
or more densities. Some planetary spheres are hospitable only for
certain densities. Your planetary sphere, for instance, is at this
time hospitable to levels or densities one, two, three, and four.
Questioner: Roughly how many total planets in this galaxy of stars
that we are in are aware regardless of density?
Ra: I am Ra. Approximately six seven oh oh oh oh oh oh [67 million].
Questioner: Can you tell me what percentage of those are third,
fourth, fifth, sixth etc., density?
Ra: I am Ra. A percentage seventeen for first density, a percentage
twenty for second density, a percentage twenty-seven for third
density, a percentage sixteen for fourth density, a percentage six for
fifth density. The other information must be withheld. The free will
of your future is not making this available. We shall speak on one
item. There is a fairly large percentage, approximately thirty-five
percent of the intelligent planets, which do not fit in the
percentiles. These mysteries are of sixth and seventh density and are
not available for our speaking.
Questioner: Of these first five densities, have all of the planets
progressed from the third density by knowledge and application of the
Law of One?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.
Questioner: Then the only way for a planet to get out of the situation
that we are in is for the population to become aware of and start
practicing the Law of One. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

E. Drake

10-26-2005, 09:37 PM

Pi <johnnypi@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=dootkFzDK_qGhgkz-LuCaVrsLxwZFziXDKaCmvHE4dWHeYMqpkYGZsVRe6_czsIiDZh YCBqTkBy-)> wrote:
Hello Pi,

Thank you for the reference to the reading, and the response. The reading is
with regard to the Galaxy. I think I am not being clear enough with my query
that I thank Petrus for initially stimulating to attention secondarily as a
result of her other question. I have seen several attempts at answers, but still
not to the point.

1. Is in fact the "entire solar system" (NOT GALAXY)in 3D, no exceptions i.e.
all nine planets? This means none are in 1st or 2nd, much less 4th or 5th etc.

This question pertians specifically to our "Solar System" of nine 9 "PLANETS"
(earth, mars, mercury, venus, Saturn, Jupitar, uranus, neptune, pluto) "not the
entire Milky Way Galaxy" which must have as definition infinity.

Petrus stated that in David's information, to the best of her memory, the entire
solar system is moving to 4th density. This infers, according to this
information Petrus gives credit to David for, that the entire solar system (all
9 planets)then must be in 3rd. Did RA state this in the Material? Help me to
find same. I am searching for this specific point with respect to the Loo, RA,
stating that all 9 planets are moving to 4th (not just earth) as Petrus believes
David states, and thus that the entire solar system is as a result in 3rd.

Although perhaps in the material( Loo), I do not recall so
specifically? Please help with the reference section.

2. Second question was: May a group - a people, a social memory complex outgrow
a planet, verses the inverse as in earth's case wherein clearly the planet has
outgrown the people/group?

2(a). Did Venus, the sub-sub logos, move to 4D with the social memory complex
'of the people' of Ra and company advancing with the group of RA and company?

If Venus did, then Venus may still be in 4th, or further since then, and as
Petrus intelligently asks, then Venus is not in 3rd, and is the exception, and
then one may infer that this may not be an exception, in that others may also
not be in 3rd. See?

Thus, if the logic holds, assuming the premise to be correct with respect to
Venus having moved to 4th with RA and company, then there may be varying
densities 1-8 "of" the 9 planets, not with respect to the "inhabitants" of the
planets which we already know have varying densities as is seen in our own
bodies containing 1-3.

Thanking you again in advance,

Drake

---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

lottacontinuum

10-27-2005, 04:54 AM

> 1. Is in fact the "entire solar system" (NOT GALAXY)in 3D, no exceptions i.e.
all nine
planets? This means none are in 1st or 2nd, much less 4th or 5th etc.

Hi Drake and Pi,

I googled the L/L Research and Ascension2000 Website for an hour now, but
haven`t
found an Information, of which I think I read it somewhere there (but there was
ahuge
amount of found pages found using the suitable search words):

As I remember the Text said something that the closer a planet is to itÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃ ÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ´s solar
sun, the
higher it is in its dimensional awareness (planet subsublogos as well as
Inhabitants). This
is not only in the solar system itself, but also in the entire galaxy. The solar
systems that
are closer to the center of the galaxy are higher dimensional than the ones on
the outer
arms of the spiral (e.g. earth).

That would mean, they are all of a different dimensional vibration in a
holographic sense.
In the small means within the solar system and itÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃ ÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ´s cycles and on a larger scale
within the
galaxy and itÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃ ÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ´s cycles.
But I cannot find it anymore and therefore am not sure if it really comes from
Ra or if that
is an information I read somewhere else.
If I find it I will post it or maybe one of you guys know where that one was
again...

Lotta

pschutzy

10-27-2005, 01:47 PM

Drake, when I first read the questions you posed, my response
was, "Duh, hum, don't know." And I went on with whatever. However,
the ideas keep coming to the front of my brain.
First, I haven't studied all of the RA material (that's a work in
process). And I have not found, so far, documentation to
substantiate my theories so what I'm offering is purely speculation
from my point of view. Although, come to think of it, when has lack
of knowledge ever stopped me from offering my opinion on a topic.
This is how I come to terms with your questions?

"1. Is in fact the "entire solar system" (NOT GALAXY)in 3D, no
exceptions i.e. all nine planets? This means none are in 1st or 2nd,
much less 4th or 5th etc."

I don't think every planet within our Sun's system is in 3D.
Please hang with me as, I start with? me? Little `ol me? running
amuck on this beautiful planet Earth? This form I've incarnated into
houses 1st, 2nd, and 3rd density life form(s), aspiring to 4th
density. (unless I've forgotten and am of a higher density also, but
that's another topic.) So this human form made up of galaxies of
molecules continually dying and being created also is home to higher
life forms that I am consciously aware of. I won't go into the ones
I abstractly suspect are also "present".
Now, widening my horizons? I move up and presume to see the solar
system of our radiant sun, all planets therein spinning to the tune
of the Sun, who spins to the tune of? etc.
What I believe to know is that Earth is birthing into a 4th density
planet and we (at least some of us) are going thru this process with
her. Also in our solar system are beings/entities of varying
densities learning endless lessons (or is it the same lesson from
different directions?) So my mind comes to the conclusion? if there
are so many different densities represented on Earth, why could
there not be many densities held by the individual planets with our
Sun's reach? As they help "us/Earth" move on they also move on?
Could it be that Earth is moving "up a grade" and the other planets
are moving onto new lessons in their "current grade/density"?
Since like attracts like, it would make sense to me that variety is
the method used in this solar system, all moving forward together,
but at an individual pace (within reason/order/balance) learning
unity.

"2. Second question was:?"

Sorry my mind is spinning too rapidly thinking of different quantum
possibilities to attempt a response.

"Thus, if the logic holds, assuming the premise to be correct
with respect to Venus having moved to 4th with RA and company, then
there may be varying densities 1-8 "of" the 9 planets, not with
respect to the "inhabitants" of the planets which we already know
have varying densities as is seen in our own bodies containing 1-3."

Yup, I would tend to agree with you. There is always some one from
above to lend a hand to those who are climbing upward.

Blessings and Joy
Patty

10-27-2005, 02:13 PM

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=f5U11MkvQpewmKr_804MjKCSkv-fvqGsui6wirb56qJSKpKrkf5R7mCs2gpVJgBpJs-gyR5OzCWVadAE-Na1), "E. Drake" wrote:

> 1. Is in fact the "entire solar system" (NOT GALAXY)in 3D, no
exceptions i.e. all nine planets? This means none are in 1st or 2nd,
much less 4th or 5th etc.

> This question pertians specifically to our "Solar System" of nine 9
"PLANETS" (earth, mars, mercury, venus, Saturn, Jupitar, uranus,
neptune, pluto) "not the entire Milky Way Galaxy" which must have as
definition infinity.

PI: No, the nine planets that might be classified as an "entire solar
system" are hospitable to dimensions other than 3d.

> Petrus stated that in David's information, to the best of her memory
the entire solar system is moving to 4th density. This infers,
according to this information Petrus gives credit to David for, that
the entire solar system (all 9 planets)then must be in 3rd. Did RA
state this in the Material? Help me to find same. I am searching for
this specific point with respect to the Loo, RA, stating that all 9
planets are moving to 4th (not just earth) as Petrus believes David
states, and thus that the entire solar system is as a result in 3rd.

Although perhaps in the material( Loo), I do not recall so
specifically? Please help with the reference section.

PI: For the entire solar system to move to 4th density at the same
exact point, each planetray sub-sub-Logos (co-Creator of each planet))
would have to have scripted an identical evolutionary plan. Possible?
Yes, of course. Likely to be happening? Absolutely not. Without using
specific reference in the Ra material to this occurrence, we can say
that from what we know of differences in background of the planetary
densities, it would be a violation of the free will of sub-sub-Logos
to use this as a qualification for transition of earth from 3d to 4d.

Book 2, Session 28, 2/22/81
Questioner: Let's take as an example the planet that we are on now &
tell me how much of the creation was created by the same Logos that
created this planet?
Ra: I am Ra. This planetary Logos is a strong Logos creating
approximately 250 billion of your star systems for Its creation. The,
shall we say, laws or physical ways of this creation will remain,
therefore, constant.
Questioner: Then what you are saying is that the lenticular star
system which we call a galaxy that we find ourselves in with
approximately 250 billion other suns like our own was created by a
single Logos. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

In response to an inquiry in another session, Ra says a sub-sub-Logos
of a planet may choose a plan that begins its evolution at 3d or 4d. A
planet Logos must complete 7 octaves, or densities, before it enters
the 8th octave; but the progression does not have to be linear.

> 2. Second question was: May a group - a people, a social memory
complex outgrow a planet, versus the inverse as in earth's case
wherein clearly the planet has outgrown the people/group?

PI: No, this would not occur. As noted in the excerpt below, when it's
created, a planet is endowed with vibrations of all densities. It
only manifests whatever densities are enumerated by its evolutionary
plan. So a planet is able to support accelerated evolution of its
sub-Logoi (social memory complex). Earth could have moved to 4d fifty
thousand years or 25,000 years ago. (If a critical mass of entities
qualifies in the course of a cycle, they may choose to serve in inner
planes or to perform service temporarily outside this planetary Logos,
IMHO.)

Book 2, Session 41, 3-20-81
Questioner: I am going to make a statement of my understanding and ask
you to correct me. I intuitively see the first-density being formed by
an energy center which is a vortex. This vortex then causes these
spinning motions that I have mentioned before of vibration which is
light which then starts to condense into materials of the first
density. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct as far as your reasoning has taken you.
However, it is well to point out that the Logos has the plan of all
the densities of the octave in potential completion before entering
the space/time continuum in first-density. Thus the energy centers
exist before they are manifest.

Book 2, Session 29, 2-23-81
Questioner: Is it possible for you to give me an example of various
planetary developments in what I would call a metaphysical sense
having to do with the development of consciousness & its polarities
throughout the galaxy? In other words I believe that some of these
planets develop quite rapidly into higher density planets & some take
longer times. Can you give me some idea of that development?
Ra: I am Ra. This will be the final full query of this session.
The particular Logos of your major galaxy has used a large portion of
Its coalesced material to reflect the being-ness of the Creator. In
this way there is much of your galactic system which does not have the
progression of which you speak but dwells spiritually as a portion of
the Logos. Of those entities upon which consciousness dwells there is,
as you surmise, a variety of time/space periods during which the
higher densities of experience are attained by consciousness.

>2(a). Did Venus, the sub-sub logos, move to 4D with the social memory
complex 'of the people' of Ra and company advancing with the group of
RA and company?
If Venus did, then Venus may still be in 4th, or further since then,
and as Petrus intelligently asks, then Venus is not in 3rd, and is the
exception, and then one may infer that this may not be an exception,
in that others may also not be in 3rd. See?
Thus, if the logic holds, assuming the premise to be correct with
respect to Venus having moved to 4th with RA and company, then there
may be varying densities 1-8 "of" the 9 planets, not with respect to
the "inhabitants" of the planets which we already know have varying
densities as is seen in our own bodies containing 1-3.

PI: Yes, Venus moved to 4d & also to 5d.

Book 2, Session 41, 3-20-81
Questioner: This may be too long a question for this working, but I
will ask it and if it is too long we can continue it at a later time.
Could you tell me of the development of the social memory complex Ra,
from its first beginnings and what catalysts it used to get to where
it is now in activation of rays?
Ra: I am Ra. The question does not demand a long answer, for we who
experienced the vibratory densities upon that planetary sphere which
you call Venus were fortunate in being able to move in harmony with
the planetary vibrations with an harmonious graduation to second, to
third, and to fourth, and a greatly accelerated fourth-density experience.
We spent much time/space, if you will, in fifth-density balancing the
intense compassion we had gained in fourth-density. The graduation
again was harmonious and our social memory complex which had become
most firmly cemented in fourth-density remained of a very strong and
helpful nature.
Our sixth-density work was also accelerated because of the harmony of
our social memory complex so that we were able to set out as members
of the Confederation to even more swiftly approach graduation to
seventh density. Our harmony, however, has been a grievous source of
naivetÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃ ÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ© as regards working with your planet.

Peace & Love, pi

Chris Hamilton

10-27-2005, 06:50 PM

From: "Pi" <johnnypi@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=pO2xoT8F-GAK36GkdnQkdUQ9rZuVjcNL_djb_P7YoSk22257M_xNaZMM92A 5ne8UC5QAfkwwKQQE0gs)>
> Petrus stated that in David's information, to the best of her memory the
> entire solar system is moving to 4th density. This infers, according to
> this information Petrus gives credit to David for, that the entire solar
> system (all 9 planets)then must be in 3rd.

Chris: Well, from my perspective, perhaps from our collective 3D
perspective, all humans have this 3D attitude and we all DO see the planets
as 3D manisfestation, right? I mean, from our human viewpoint, we DO
perceive everything as 3D. Most of us can't go beyond and perceive 4D, so we
don't have that in our general human form of possibilities. I say most,
because some of us can touch other densities psychically. I think that is
why Ra came forth-to try to show us the difference between our perception in
3D and to suggest other possibilities.

I would conjecture that when we as humans,as immersed in our physical world
as we are, try to differentiate one density from another, we are, in fact
simply doing what is natural for us as 3D critters: we separate stuff so we
can see how things are different, layered, HAVE dimension and density? In
OW's, we need these densities to bring some sense to how we as humans
perceive the universe and ALL. When, in fact, if we vibrated higher, we
would probably snicker at our 3D counterpart stacking things in neat little
rows, and gloating with satisfaction with the false perception of putting
things all in order:)

Johnny: Although perhaps in the material( Loo), I do not recall
sospecifically? [about the planets] Please help with the reference section.

Chris: I haven't had time to look Johnny. But we have many very
knowledgeable LoO people here, I am proud to say. Let me take the
opportunity here to say how wonderful all of you have been here: Drake,
Petrus (in your wide-eyed wonder:), Lotta, Neil, Jan, Jake, Peter (oh wow I
don't want to insult anyone by leaving you out, but you know who you are :).

I think that ALL of Johnny's post has some very thought-provoking questions
for all of you, so I can go back to lurking:). Chris

E. Drake

10-30-2005, 04:34 PM

Dear PI,

Thank you so much for the informative dialog. To date, yours has been the most
specific of answers to the questions I still seek. May we as a group continue in
this investigation of the Solar Sytem's graduation verses Earths? Petrus states
that in David's information, to the best of her memory, the entire solar system
is moving to 4th density. This infers, according to this information Petrus
gives credit to David for, that the entire solar system (all 9 planets)then must
be in 3rd.

PI: No, the nine planets that might be classified as an "entire solar system"
are hospitable to dimensions other than 3d

Drake: I am now searching for this specific point with respect to Petrus's
memory of the understanding of David's work for my own better understanding. I
have searched high and low, and still no luck.Please help me find same.

PI continues: In response to an inquiry in another session, Ra says a
sub-sub-Logos of a planet may choose a plan that begins its evolution at 3d or
4d. A planet Logos must complete 7 octaves, or densities, before it enters the
8th octave; but the progression does
not have to be linear.

Drake: What does "linear" mean with respect to this answer? Might one assume
this to mean it is not rule that a planet progresses in linear chronology 1-8? I
must be interpreting this incorrectly? But perhaps not? If I interpret this to
be so, then specifically, a sub-sub logos/planet may digress in octave/density,
or may jump an octave/density for it's progression, much like a wanderer of 6th
density digressing to 3rd for it's intensified progression to 7th? Example: A
planet is at 4th, may it jump to 7th, or digress to 3rd, given that it has all
eight, if so scripted for it's evolution?
Are these 8 octaves in potentiation 'only and explicitly', or are they 'in fact
co-existing in simultaneity' in another sense, other than potentiation?

Grateful for the help to Pi/Petrus/and/or the group,

Faithfully,

Drake

---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

Petrus

10-30-2005, 08:40 PM

Hi Drake,

> Drake: I am now searching for this specific point with respect to
Petrus's memory of the understanding of David's work for my own better
understanding. I have searched high and low, and still no luck.Please help
me find same.

I should probably clarify. David didn't actually say that all of the
planets in the solar system are moving to 4D. What he does say in his
hyperdimensional physics material is that anomolous meteorological
conditions are occuring on all of the planets in the solar system. I then
first made the assumption/interpretation myself that the climactic changes
on Earth were part of the process of us moving to 4D, and that if that is
what the weather changes were related to on Earth, that it then followed as
another reasonable assumption that they were being caused by a similar
effect on the other planets...Either that, or that what was truly changing
on the other planets was merely our perception of them, rather than their
actual conditions themselves.

My point with regards to the planets is that to me it is entirely possible
that their weather conditions have not in fact changed at all, but that
rather what has changed is that the boundary between our usual dimension of
residence and one in which these weather patterns are occuring, has become
thinner, primarily due to our entry into said dimension on a gradual basis.
Thus, we are now able to observe them, where we were not before. If we
cannot see the contents of a room because up to the present moment it has
been in pitch darkness, when a light is turned on it is not a safe
assumption that the conditions of the room have remained static throughout
time up until the moment the light was turned on.

These are difficult and abstract concepts, and I am presently deeply tired,
so I apologise if I am not explaining what I mean adequately.

> Are these 8 octaves in potentiation 'only and explicitly', or are they 'in
fact co-existing in simultaneity' in another sense, other than potentiation?

I suspect that our usually linear mode of thinking might have some
difficulty with the answer to this question, were we able to know it in it's
entirety. I also am given a feeling that the Law of Confusion has a part to
play here, as well.

10-30-2005, 09:22 PM

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=AN1Xq6wEt3M-x9xEKN1v8fofwqrcp_styaRTdT2xM2VZT8k6CI1KlJgEovzozr wu87C5sDW-nqhszmE), "E. Drake" <truelyndeeply@y...> wrote:
Petrus states that in David's information, to the best of her memory,
the entire solar system is moving to 4th density. This infers,
according to this information Petrus gives credit to David for, that
the entire solar system (all 9 planets)then must be in 3rd.

PI previously wrote: No, the nine planets that might be classified as
an "entire solar system" are hospitable to dimensions other than 3d

Drake: I am now searching for this specific point with respect to
Petrus's memory of the understanding of David's work for my own
better understanding. I have searched high and low, and still no
luck. Please help me find same.

PI: i don't recall any message posted to this group or statement by
David at asc2k web site that corresponds with Petrus' recollection. I
am skeptical about the prospect of finding such a quote, so i'm going
to pass on searching for it. Maybe David said an evolutionary path of
all 9 planets will include movement into & graduation from 3d & 4d, &
that left Petrus with the impression it would occur simultaneously?

PI had written: In response to an inquiry in another session, Ra says
a sub-sub-Logos of a planet may choose a plan that begins its
evolution at 3d or 4d. A planet Logos must complete 7 octaves, or
densities, before it enters the 8th octave; but the progression does
not have to be linear.
>
Drake: What does "linear" mean with respect to this answer? Might one
assume this to mean it is not rule that a planet progresses in linear
chronology 1-8? I must be interpreting this incorrectly? But perhaps
not? If I interpret this to be so, then specifically, a sub-sub
logos/planet may digress in octave/density, or may jump an
octave/density for its progression, much like a wanderer of 6th
density digressing to 3rd for it's intensified progression to 7th?
Example: A planet is at 4th, may it jump to 7th, or digress to 3rd,
given that it has all eight, if so scripted for it's evolution?

PI: Pardon my lack of clarity, Drake. Your interpretation is correct -
- i used linear to mean "in ascending numerical order, starting with
#1. Ra says in some evolutionary plans may allow a sub-sub logos to
initially experience consciousness at a higher density. I know i read
that recently, yet i am unable to find the specific quote!! lol i now
ask you & Petrus & all for help finding it. i am too distracted by
laughter to focus on searching that quote!!

Drake had written: Are these 8 octaves in potentiation 'only and
explicitly', or are they 'in fact co-existing in simultaneity' in
another sense, other than potentiation?

PI: i'm unsure about the point of this question but offer commentary
that i hope is relevant. One octave consists of 7 sub-octaves -- #8
may be envisioned as all 7 create 1. i don't read music, but it seems
the structure of octaves in a Logos & in musicals scale is identical.
Anyone able to help explain "do re mi fa so la ti do"?

Density 7 achieves consciousness after #1-6 are in complete harmony.
Density 8 is total mystery. It seems the density # is representation
of its hospitality to co-existence of life forms. Upon mastering the
lessons of love for 4d, for example, planet earth will be hospitable
to 1d 2d 3d 4d 5d life forms. i do not perceive each density to exist
in separate planes, though Ra says 3d life forms will be quarantined
temporarily, so 4d entities can root the self securely in the nature
of 4d life.

peace & love, pi

10-31-2005, 08:42 AM

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=0RId86k2O4WN5x0nJzBO65qyk8dY2DuhtJ-1IOawIAS3O4YwI_ldT_ijjMO40GneFuTbf6T3eF485P6Fv4xvy A), "Petrus" <petrus@b...> wrote:

I should probably clarify. David didn't actually say that all of the
planets in the solar system are moving to 4D. What he does say in
his hyperdimensional physics material is that anomolous meteorological
conditions are occuring on all of the planets in the solar system. I
then first made the assumption/interpretation myself that the
climactic changes on Earth were part of the process of us moving to
4D, and that if that is what the weather changes were related to on
Earth, that it then followed as another reasonable assumption that
they were being caused by a similar effect on the other planets...
Either that, or that what was truly changing on the other planets was
merely our perception of them, rather than their actual conditions
themselves.

PI: In reply to many queries, Ra notes that climate changes on Earth
reflect an acceleration of fine tuning compatibility in miscellaneous
conditions necessary for Earth moving to 4d. It is the consciousness
of we inhabitants populating planet earth that has been precipitating
sharp climate change that we are witnessing. Were our consciousness
more attuned to One, climate change would be less accelerated.

So each of us is the One who's creating climate change thru the power
of the effect of our consciousness. We also affect climate conditions
of other planets, since we are one. And yes, changes we perceive in
the climate of other planets also do reflect change in our capacity
to perceive change. Evidently, wherever we look, we will find planet
Eath is indeed a speck that's connected on a circuitous circle.

Ra said an acceleration of climate change began about 6 years before
the LoO materials began to be channeled & might continue to be needed
for the following 30 years.

> > Drake: I am now searching for this specific point with respect to
Petrus's memory of the understanding of David's work for my own better
understanding. I have searched high and low, and still no luck.Please
help me find same.
>
> Petrus: My point with regards to the planets is that to me it is
entirely possible that their weather conditions have not in fact
changed at all, but that rather what has changed is that the boundary
between our usual dimension of residence and one in which these
weather patterns are occuring, has become thinner, primarily due to
our entry into said dimension on a gradual basis.
Thus, we are now able to observe them, where we were not before. If
we cannot see the contents of a room because up to the present moment
it has been in pitch darkness, when a light is turned on it is not a
safe assumption that the conditions of the room have remained static
throughout time up until the moment the light was turned on.

Pi: What you are saying is consistent with what i wrote above, if we
agreed to include the notion that what's changed is that we perceive
the boundary between us "and other stars" to be more permeable than
we previously conceived, & we find a process of reciprocity exists,
in that we now perceive changes in our consciousness have potential
to create changes in consciousness of other planets (& vice versa).
Climate change is an example & a sub-set of this view of Oneness.

love & peace, pi

E. Drake

10-31-2005, 03:43 PM

Pi <johnnypi@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=8NLl7uiZ98zolM9beWRvi1gOC174aFXlbek7tQ 6LPRhXxd3gtyKrr66yC2L0HUdMKDBcyTVrfw3fUCA)> wrote:

PI: Pardon my lack of clarity, Drake. Your interpretation is correct. I used
linear to mean "in ascending numerical order, starting with #1. Ra says some
evolutionary plans may allow a sub-sub logos to initially experience
consciousness at a higher density. I know i read that recently, yet i am unable
to find the specific quote!!
__________________________________________________ __________________________

Drake: If indeed a planet does not 'necessarily' progresses in linear
chronology 1-8, and if a sub sub logos may indeed 'begin' at a higher density,
may a sub sub logos planet also digress in octave/density, much like a wanderer
of 6th density digressing to 3rd for it's intensified progression to 7th?

Presumably so it might seem from this information? If indeed it may "begin" at a
higher density, and yet must nonetheless complete all 7 octaves, then it stands
to reason by logic and inference that it may jump/or digress in varying fashion
from a 4th for example to a 7th and then back to a 3rd, or any manner of varying
combinations, with the knowledge that it must complete all 7, but not in order
1-7?

It may not be in the Loo information as such, but may it not stand to reason as
such by inference, logic, and previous information of Ra at hand, that given a
sub sub logos being of higher consciousness than are we of, at least 1-6, and if
indeed a 4D wanderer may wander/digress to 3rd, or a 6D wanderer may
wander/digress to 3D, for their respective accelerations to 5th or 7th, then so
too may a planet in it's ability to do same?

How strange and magnificent if so, and perhaps we have stumbled across a bit of
information, although not addressed specifically, it may by logic and reason
stand as possibility?

Any thoughts?

Drake

---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

11-01-2005, 07:56 AM

This is what (Bk 2, Session 28, 2/22/81) i previously referenced:

QUESTIONER: Thank you. I'll call the lenticular galaxy that we are in
the major galaxy just so we will not get mixed up in our terms. Does
all the consciousness in individualized form that goes into what we
are calling the major galaxy start out and go through all of the
densities in order, one-two-three-four-five-six-seven and into the
eighth, or are there some who start up higher in the rank so that
there is always a mixture of intelligent consciousness in the galaxy?
RA: I am Ra. The latter is more nearly correct. In each beginning
there is the beginning from infinite strength. Free will acts as a
catalyst. Beings begin to form the universes. Consciousness then
begins to have the potential to experience. The potentials of
experience are created as a part of intelligent energy and are fixed
before experience begins.
However, there is always, due to free will acting infinitely upon the
creation, a great variation in initial responses to intelligent
energy's potential. Thus almost immediately the foundations of the,
shall we call it, hierarchical nature of beings begins to manifest as
some portions of consciousness or awareness learn through experience
in a much more efficient manner.
QUESTIONER: Is there any reason for some portions being much more
efficient in learning?
RA: I am Ra. Is there any reason for some to learn more quickly than
others? Look, if you wish, to the function of the will ... the, shall
we say, attraction to the upward spiraling line of light.
QUESTIONER: I am assuming that there are eight densities created when
this major galaxy was created. Is this correct?
RA: I am Ra. This is basically correct. However, it is well to
perceive that the eighth density functions also as the beginning
density or first density, in its latter stages, of the next octave of
densities.

> > Pi previously wrote: Ra says some evolutionary plans may allow a
sub-sub logos to initially experience consciousness at a higher
density. I know i read that recently, yet i am unable to find the
specific quote!!

> Drake responded: If indeed a planet does not 'necessarily' progress
in linear chronology 1-8, and if a sub sub logos may indeed 'begin'
at a higher density, may a sub sub logos planet also digress in
octave/density, much like a wanderer of 6th density digressing to 3rd
for it's intensified progression to 7th?
Presumably so it might seem from this information? If indeed it
may "begin" at a higher density, and yet must nonetheless complete
all 7 octaves, then it stands to reason by logic and inference that
it may jump/or digress in varying fashion from a 4th for example to a
7th and then back to a 3rd, or any manner of varying combinations,
with the knowledge that it must complete all 7, but not in order 1-
7?
It may not be in the Loo information as such, but may it not stand to
reason as such by inference, logic, and previous information of Ra at
hand, that given a sub sub logos being of higher consciousness than
are we of, at least 1-6, and if indeed a 4D wanderer may wander /
digress to 3rd, or a 6D wanderer may wander/digress to 3D, for their
respective accelerations to 5th or 7th, then so too may a planet in
it's ability to do same?
How strange & magnificent if so, and perhaps we have stumbled across
a bit of information, although not addressed specifically, it may by
logic & reason stand as possibility?
Any thoughts?

Pi: i agree with you, Drake. But in deference to a need to balance
the polarity of this thread, i see the possibility as illogical &
unreasonable... <grin>

peace & love, pi

Monica Leal

11-01-2005, 08:28 AM

There is so much complex knowledge imparted to us by Ra just
pertaining to the evolutionary plan of our own Logos. Ra barely
touched upon those of other Logi. It boggles the imagination to even
contemplate what they may be like! Perhaps such cosmic manifestations
as 'black holes' and other various phenomena are physical
representations of all sorts of wondrous events that might not appear
logical to us in this galaxy.

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=JEJwC6z_F5RAtApj6wTN54C-UWRDhCb4QaJ19SYiywlwANloUz-KhuHeJS48P-dnuxoCysSpnnvl5Yc), "Pi" <johnnypi@y...> wrote:

> Drake: It may not be in the Loo information as such, but may it not
stand to
> reason as such by inference, logic, and previous information of Ra at
> hand, that given a sub sub logos being of higher consciousness than
> are we of, at least 1-6, and if indeed a 4D wanderer may wander /
> digress to 3rd, or a 6D wanderer may wander/digress to 3D, for their

>
> Pi: i agree with you, Drake. But in deference to a need to balance
> the polarity of this thread, i see the possibility as illogical &
> unreasonable... <grin>
>
> peace & love, pi
>

E. Drake

11-01-2005, 09:05 AM

Drake:If indeed a planet does not 'necessarily' progress
in linear chronology 1-8, and if a sub sub logos may indeed 'begin' at a higher
density, may a sub sub logos planet also digress in octave/density, much like a
wanderer of 6th density digressing to 3rd for it's intensified progression to
7th? Presumably so it might seem from this information? If indeed it may "begin"
at a higher density, and yet must nonetheless complete all 7 octaves, then it
stands to reason by logic and inference that it may jump/or digress in varying
fashion from a 4th for example to a 7th and then back to a 3rd, or any manner of
varying combinations, with the knowledge that it must complete all 7, but not in
order 1-7?
It may not be in the Loo information as such, but may it not stand to reason as
such by inference, logic, and previous information of Ra at hand, that given a
sub sub logos being of higher consciousness than are we of, at least 1-6, and if
indeed a 4D wanderer may wander / digress to 3rd, or a 6D wanderer may
wander/digress to 3D, for their respective accelerations to 5th or 7th, then so
too may a planet in it's ability to do same? How strange & magnificent if so,
and perhaps we have stumbled across a bit of information, although not addressed
specifically, it may by logic & reason stand as possibility?Any thoughts?

Pi: i agree with you, Drake. But in deference to a need to balance the polarity
of this thread, i see the possibility as illogical & unreasonable... <grin>

peace & love, pi

__________________________________________________ _________

Drake: I'll see your grin and raise you a chuckle laughing gregariously at your
last response. Well said Pi. Very well said. So, now we may have not only
wandering wanderers with wandering wondering eyes, but so too perhaps the
propensity of polyoctave planets popping in and out of position of preplaced
density.

---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

11-01-2005, 03:04 PM

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=1dtTHbZglOE99hKRL8J29IDABLUBx4qYXwolGO VB6dZjK9iIu-AOnFBcxzZHYHVb2xXjsEHqElfO2AaiSg), "E. Drake" <truelyndeeply@y...> wrote:
> Drake:If indeed a planet does not 'necessarily' progress
> in linear chronology 1-8, and if a sub sub logos may indeed 'begin'
at a higher density, may a sub sub logos planet also digress in
octave/density, much like a wanderer of 6th density digressing to 3rd
for it's intensified progression to 7th? Presumably so it might seem
from this information? If indeed it may "begin" at a higher density,
and yet must nonetheless complete all 7 octaves, then it stands to
reason by logic and inference that it may jump/or digress in varying
fashion from a 4th for example to a 7th and then back to a 3rd, or
any manner of varying combinations, with the knowledge that it must
complete all 7, but not in order 1-7?
> It may not be in the Loo information as such, but may it not stand
to reason as such by inference, logic, and previous information of Ra
at hand, that given a sub sub logos being of higher consciousness
than are we of, at least 1-6, and if indeed a 4D wanderer may
wander / digress to 3rd, or a 6D wanderer may wander/digress to 3D,
for their respective accelerations to 5th or 7th, then so too may a
planet in it's ability to do same? How strange & magnificent if so,
and perhaps we have stumbled across a bit of information, although
not addressed specifically, it may by logic & reason stand as
possibility? Any thoughts?
>
Pi: i agree with you, Drake. But in deference to a need to balance
the polarity of this thread, i see the possibility as illogical &
unreasonable... <grin>
>
Drake: I'll see your grin and raise you a chuckle laughing
gregariously at your last response. Well said Pi. Very well said. So,
now we may have not only wandering wanderers with wandering wondering
eyes, but so too perhaps the propensity of polyoctave planets popping
in and out of position of preplaced density.

Pi: Amen! Drake, i see your chuckle & hold (my sides're about to bust
open)! ROFL Now I feel sanctified! Amen!