--daniel on twitter

For general discussion of topics that don't have a specific theme, questions or suggestions for research.

Moderator: daniel

Ilkka
Adept
Adept
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:16 pm

Re: --daniel on twitter

Post by Ilkka » Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:15 pm

Andrew wrote:At first I thought it was Angels or the Universe giving me a "thumbs up" through the magical synchronicities, until I realized a correspondence in their occurrences with my emotions at the time. But, now I'm asking if there is more to it than just my own will. If magical nature, like Imagination in the quotation I used in my last comment, is conscious as well.
There are positive and negative syncronicities, as Daniel or LB told me once in these forums. Everything has Yin and Yang sides, positive and negative.

I'm not sure if there is some kind of technological instrument that is trying to control us even though we are not in any place near electrical devices other than those big masts with dishes all over and blasting radiosignals and whatnot. There are so many distractions that keep us busy per day that really blows our minds, if kept busy being entertained all the time that is, and anything related to sexual intercourse is pretty much entertainment nowadays, since it is rarely being practiced for its sole purpose, child making. Nowadays it is only for fun and you see it in every entertainment, almost.

So in conclusion there might be a physical control device.
There definetely is psychological control going on, has been for some time now we are being taught into it from the child, so it remains mostly hidden.

In essence it is our own will, just need to choose between ego or soul which act to do next. If you can communicate with your intuition properly enough then you have to only go by its suggestions like I have for about 48% intuition and rest ego on daily basis, sometimes more the other, now I think it needs some balance so I need to go by my intuition more again.
Andrew wrote:We are infinite beings in an infinite universe.
I gotta disagree. Everything so far has been finite, so there can't really be infinity exept maybe in ones imagination, not even there to be honest. I think no one can actually imagine infinity, when you take it that far I mean. Yet unmeasured beings in yet unmeasured universe would be more accurate.

Also "Law of one" might have actually been "channeled" from the memory of the individual since he/she was familiar with RS back then, according to Daniel or LB. At least that stuff about photon seems quite accurate description that suits RS.

Wasn't photon in both material and cosmic sides making it more living, so maybe "love" means actually life? Natural light of course.

The thing with sperm cells etc. is that one should not have any kind of thoughts about sex at all in everydays life, that way one could save more Jing when doing their meditative practice. But I would not be so sure that it is a healthy thing in the end holding that in so much, look at the natural side of it. Both women and men have to excrete cells that have been there long enough and I believe that men are at a little disadvange here, because of the need for that discharge when the urge gets too big, women have it monthly. Otherwise nature would be unfair, for my point of view that is. Well good thing is the older you get the less aroused you get per day for men, at least. That I have noticed, still there are times when that heat surfaces once more.

If some of you want to do celibacy you should note that you would need to practice your prostate muscle, because that way you might avert possible prostate cancer, since it is made to do its thing, not doing its thing = unhealthy on the long term. You could say it is like any muscle if you dont use it you lose it. Like I have been sitting again for too long per day and my left leg is reminding me of that by aching so I gotta go out more and less sitting and being entertained.

User avatar
joeyv23
Mage
Mage
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:13 am
Location: SLC UT, USA
Contact:

Re: --daniel on twitter

Post by joeyv23 » Sat Apr 30, 2016 2:21 am

Andrew wrote:I see life as something that should be pleasurable, gratifying, and loving.


Once upon a time ago I used to want this as my reality. I see things a little differently now. Pleasure and gratification are integral, but discomfort and frustration are equally as integral to the experience of evolution of consciousness.
If nature had intended for us to be consumed by our own sexual processes we would ultimately fail as a living species.


Nature may not have intended it for us, but it has been intended and our species is, by and large, headed in that direction.
The Matrix as we know it doesn't really have any power in and of itself. It is just a corrupted, collective worldview that is "ruled by" the Elites, but is honestly the slaves that propagate their own slavery, and defend it.
The fact that people defend it is indicative of the power that is given it. It's difficult for people to break out of the matrix reality because it's powerful, not because the primary drive is to accept it. The primary drive, that I'm aware of, is to evolve. Those who make use of the well of will power within themselves to step out of that box are taking their power back from it (this matrix of reality).
I don't believe the "Devil" running the Matrix is doing these things to further entrain me into a system.
Nor do I. Entrainment happens as a free will choice on the part of each individual.
Remember it was Enlil that didn't want us to have sexuality, because it would eventually lead us to thinking and acting for ourselves.
The desire for our species not to have the ability to procreate, to my knowledge, didn't have anything to do with the spiritual aspect of sexuality, but rather was due to his / their desire not to be hindered in their agenda by having to deal with the natural reproductive cycle.
The real Satanists of the world have found a way to pretty much turn anything that is good into a harmful force, but it's irrational to think that, because they can do so, that it merits throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Can you clarify.. are you saying that Satanism is, itself, a bastardization of anything that is good? If so, I think most Satanists would disagree.
I believe there is a natural cause and effect with the experiences I've described. I see where I'm stuck. At first I thought it was Angels or the Universe giving me a "thumbs up" through the magical synchronicities, until I realized a correspondence in their occurrences with my emotions at the time. But, now I'm asking if there is more to it than just my own will. If magical nature, like Imagination in the quotation I used in my last comment, is conscious as well. If magical nature, like Imagination in the quotation I used in my last comment, is conscious as well.
Right church, wrong pew.
Ilkka wrote:
Andrew wrote:We are infinite beings in an infinite universe.
I gotta disagree. Everything so far has been finite, so there can't really be infinity exept maybe in ones imagination, not even there to be honest. I think no one can actually imagine infinity, when you take it that far I mean. Yet unmeasured beings in yet unmeasured universe would be more accurate.
I have to split the middle with this one. Our universe is finite, but our potential for evolution is, as best as I can consider it, infinite.
Ilkka wrote:Also "Law of one" might have actually been "channeled" from the memory of the individual since he/she was familiar with RS back then, according to Daniel or LB. At least that stuff about photon seems quite accurate description that suits RS.

Wasn't photon in both material and cosmic sides making it more living, so maybe "love" means actually life? Natural light of course.
The photon structure exists in both sectors. It is the first manifestation of motion that produces a 'something'... a particle, the photon. I think there might be some confusion here about birotation and the linkage between material and cosmic structures that is indicative of the 2-x biologic realm of the life unit.
27.16 Questioner: Then this vibration which is, for lack of better understanding, which we would call pure motion; it is pure love; it is— it is not— there is nothing that is yet condensed, shall we say, to form any type or density of illusion. This Love then creates by this process of vibration a photon, as we call it, which is the basic particle of light. This photon then, by added vibrations and rotations, further condenses into particles of the densities, the various densities that we experience. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.
Notice that the question is loaded with a preconception about love, or Love - to be specific. If you replace that word 'love' with motion, you get something that is easily understandable.

"Then this vibration which is, for lack of a a better understanding, which we would call pure motion; it is pure motion; it is-- it is not-- there is nothing that is yet condensed, shall we say, to form any type or density of illusions. This motion then creations by the process of vibration a photon, as we call it, which is the basic particle of light."

Larson explains in chapter 2 of Nothing But Motion that the photon is a particle of what he calls 'simple harmonic motion', that is explained later by Nehru as a birotation[1][2][3] which produces upon observation within the conventional reference system a vibration (back and forth movement). From the perspective of one of the coordinate reference systems, the photon is carried outward from its point of origin at unit speed by the progression of the natural reference system (Hubble expansion). This vector motion (out/away) of the photon particle which appears in the conventional reference system as a vibration, produces a sin wave. Hereby is the solution to the wave-particle duality paradox.

So, going back to Don Elkin's question to Ra and working backwards, we can see that light is the perception of photons being carried outward by the progression of the natural reference system as the product of a vibration, which is produced by a given motion. That motion is birotation. Love, then, with respect to the questioned posed to and affirmed by Ra, is the birotation. Going back to Larson's terms, it is the simple harmonic motion: love=harmony. Light then, is the perception of the manifestation of harmonious motion / Love. I haven't read the LoO material in a while, but I recall there being discussion about Love/Light and Light/Love, so I imagine that the situation could be compared to Larson's analogy of the indivisibility of motion as a ratio of time and space to the existence of a box with its counterparts of inside and outside.
"Living is not necessary, but navigation is." --Pompey
"Navigation is necessary in order to live." --Me

User avatar
joeyv23
Mage
Mage
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:13 am
Location: SLC UT, USA
Contact:

Re: --daniel on twitter

Post by joeyv23 » Mon May 02, 2016 9:55 am

In the post immediately preceding this one, I used the word vibration where I should have used oscillation. I had originally typed both terms in my usual combining method (vibration/oscillation) to demark the interchangeability of the words but decided to go with the term that was given by Ra through Carla, vibration. After only a few pages into Larson's The Structure of the Physical Universe, I see that Larson explained the same thing that I was attempting to relay using the word, oscillation. I seem to want to recall that there has been discussion about this interchangability / misconception of terms previously either here or at AQ.

I'm taking some time to backtrack through the fora and looking at conversations that I missed and others that I participated in but for all intents and purposes missed for an inflated ego clouding my judgement while I was busy trolloping through the new age movement. I was high a lot back then, and I'm finding it beneficial for me to go back over those conversations with a clear and sober mind. If I happen upon the post that talks about the difference between vibration and oscillation, I'll edit this post to add the link.

Off the top of my head, oscillation seems to fit better with the action being discussed. Larson used a mechanism that he called a direction reversal that was later addressed/corrected by Nehru as the birotation. The oscillation inherent to this idea of direction reversal (birotation), coupled with the progression of the natural reference system which has the photon zooming away from its point of origin (as seen from one of the conventional reference systems since the photon itself doesnt move, but rather the position that it occupies, does -- radiation), is what produces the sine curve/wave.

I think it's likely that the channeling, as explained by Ilkka, relayed information through the lens of Carla's psyche and it seems equally likely to me that she didn't have the context to know the difference, but since I didn't know her, I can't say for sure whether this could be the case or not. Ra answered "This is correct." rather than making an explicit distinction between the terms because, perhaps, it wasn't necessary or worth the energy to try to split that hair, if even possible given the potential that Carla's psyche didn't at that time contain the context for the distinction to be made.
"Living is not necessary, but navigation is." --Pompey
"Navigation is necessary in order to live." --Me

User avatar
Andrew
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:05 pm

Re: --daniel on twitter

Post by Andrew » Tue May 03, 2016 10:20 pm

There are positive and negative syncronicities, as Daniel or LB told me once in these forums. Everything has Yin and Yang sides, positive and negative.
I haven't considered the actual possiblity of a synchonicity being negative or deceitful in a long time. Ever since I feel I've become grounded in morality. I've been able to pick the positive out of everything, for the most part, on the way to self-empowerment or, how some may prefer to hear, self-determination (/=/ mysticism.)
Andrew wrote:
We are infinite beings in an infinite universe.


I gotta disagree. Everything so far has been finite, so there can't really be infinity exept maybe in ones imagination, not even there to be honest. I think no one can actually imagine infinity, when you take it that far I mean. Yet unmeasured beings in yet unmeasured universe would be more accurate.

Also "Law of one" might have actually been "channeled" from the memory of the individual since he/she was familiar with RS back then, according to Daniel or LB. At least that stuff about photon seems quite accurate description that suits RS.
From what I understand, doesn't RS2 dispel the Big bang theory? Since the death of a star in s/t creates a new star in t/s, and vice versa ad infinitum?

The Law of One was channeled by Carla in between 1981-1984. Dewey Larson was putting together RS in the same time period. Yes. But what about the clarifications in Don Elkins's terminology? Did Carla really possess an intricate understanding of RS to accurately profess that a galaxy is really just a solar system?
Ra: I am Ra. I see the confusion. We have difficulty with your language.

The galaxy term must be split. We call galaxy that vibrational complex that is local. Thus, your sun is what we would call the center of a galaxy. We see you have another meaning for this term.
The desire for our species not to have the ability to procreate, to my knowledge, didn't have anything to do with the spiritual aspect of sexuality, but rather was due to his / their desire not to be hindered in their agenda by having to deal with the natural reproductive cycle.
I would just think they would take the metaphysical consequences into account. The metaphysical is bound to the physical. s/t, t/s. "As above, so below." And they are "superior" species.


****
Can you clarify.. are you saying that Satanism is, itself, a bastardization of anything that is good? If so, I think most Satanists would disagree.
Real Satanism functions off the principles as described from a former Satanic priest I met just recently in person in Philadelphia at the Free Your Mind conference.
"It has nothing to do with the Christian notion of the devil. Satanism has 4 main tenets or overarching principles of belief. And that is that self-preservation is the highest goal. And you should do whatever you can to advance your personal power and influence in the world no matter who you really have to walk all over, step on, or hurt to get what you want. That's really the number one tenet and if you look at society most of society is stuck in that cut-throat, dog-eat-dog, mentality."

2) "Moral relativism is the second major tenet which is that there is really no such thing as objective standards of right and wrong behavior. That we as human beings can get to decide upon our whims what right and wrong are and base our actions accordingly. And if you look at most of society I would say more people than not are moral relativists than moral objectivists who think that there is an objective standard of right and wrong behavior. So that's also very pervasive in society."

3) "The Third major tenet is social darwinism, the idea that the most ruthless in society have some sort of a predetermined idea or pre-destined right to basically rule over everybody else in society because their genetics got them there, and made them fit for rulership. And many people will actually think like that and think that that's ok, that that's just the natural order or the way things are. You know, and so that's also very pervasive in our society."

"And finally the 4th main pillar of Satanism is eugenics, the idea that those who are socially fit to rule, and they're the fittest in society and therefore they've come out on top and they're ruling the roost, well they can get to decide who basically propagates their genes and who does not, or in other words, who gets to live and who dies. Who must die."
If anyone reading this is at all familiar with pedophilia being rampant among secret societies, politics, the "ruling class," and the Vatican, consider the "research" of Alfred Kinsey that was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. He created a chart of the number of orgasms children could have between the ages of 5 months and 14 years old. (A 5 month year old averaged a reading of 2.4 orgasms a minute,) along with descriptions of the orgasms. This "research" was desired to "prove" that sexual engagement with children was beneficial to the children, so as to encourage pedophilia. This would not only give them grounds to make pedophilia legal, it would eventually get people to believe it was right, since people erroneously accept legality for morality.
It is almost a matter of principle that in any difficult unsolved problem the right method of attack has not been found; failure to solve important problems is rarely due to inadequacy in the handling of technical details.

Ilkka
Adept
Adept
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:16 pm

Re: --daniel on twitter

Post by Ilkka » Wed May 04, 2016 3:06 am

Andrew wrote:From what I understand, doesn't RS2 dispel the Big bang theory? Since the death of a star in s/t creates a new star in t/s, and vice versa ad infinitum?
Yes, maybe. It may have that we are in a big loop of dying and being born again, till we get out of that big loop like the Cyclopeans did, at that point who really knows what happens.
Andrew wrote:The Law of One was channeled by Carla in between 1981-1984. Dewey Larson was putting together RS in the same time period. Yes. But what about the clarifications in Don Elkins's terminology? Did Carla really possess an intricate understanding of RS to accurately profess that a galaxy is really just a solar system?
I believe it has something to do it the animus/spirit part of the human body that is "higher self". That higher mind knows better but still is limited to the vocabulary that the channeler has and all the knowledge, so there is no unknown terms or knowledge, everyhing comes from the channeler this way mostly distorted when there are many channelers. I remember that even David Wilcock said that 90% (and then some) is BS info. That is why knowledge is so important rest is just bull. Also why I dont trust any channeled material at all, because I know better. This is why communication with higher mind is sometimes difficult since there are times when more terminology is needed in order to have "clearer picture".

Ilkka
Adept
Adept
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:16 pm

Re: --daniel on twitter

Post by Ilkka » Wed May 04, 2016 3:07 am

Andrew wrote:From what I understand, doesn't RS2 dispel the Big bang theory? Since the death of a star in s/t creates a new star in t/s, and vice versa ad infinitum?
Yes, maybe. It may have that we are in a big loop of dying and being born again, till we get out of that big loop like the Cyclopeans did, at that point who really knows what happens.
Andrew wrote:The Law of One was channeled by Carla in between 1981-1984. Dewey Larson was putting together RS in the same time period. Yes. But what about the clarifications in Don Elkins's terminology? Did Carla really possess an intricate understanding of RS to accurately profess that a galaxy is really just a solar system?
I believe it has something to do it the animus/spirit part of the human body that is "higher self". That higher mind knows better but still is limited to the vocabulary that the channeler has and all the knowledge, so there is no unknown terms or knowledge, everyhing comes from the channeler this way mostly distorted when there are many channelers. I remember that even David Wilcock said that 90% (and then some) is BS info. That is why knowledge is so important rest is just bull. Also why I dont trust any channeled material at all, because I know better. This is why communication with higher mind is sometimes difficult since there are times when more terminology is needed in order to have "clearer picture".

User avatar
joeyv23
Mage
Mage
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:13 am
Location: SLC UT, USA
Contact:

Re: --daniel on twitter

Post by joeyv23 » Wed May 04, 2016 3:44 am

Andrew wrote:Since the death of a star in s/t creates a new star in t/s, and vice versa ad infinitum?
According to Larson:
Dewey Larson, [u]Beyond Space and Time[/u], pg. 41 wrote:[...] As brought out in Chapter 3, it has been definitely established that the physical universe is composed entirely of discrete units of motion. Further development of the consequences of the postulates that defi e the theoretical system reveal the large-scale action of the universe is cyclic, the magnitude of the cycles being determined by the finite life of the structures into which the units of motion aggregate. This means that the total number of units of motion existing in the physical universe is finite. Thus we may expand the previous statement about the content of the universe, and say that we have established that the sole constituent of the physical universe is a certain finite quantity of a particular kind of motion.
There is the likelihood that there are more universes than just our physical one, as is a major premise of the work done in Beyond Space and Time, but within the parameter of our physical universe, according to the conclusions based on derivation from the fundamal postulates of the system, our universe consists of a finite quantity of motion in a steady-state. I think perhaps the idea of ad infinitum may be more appropriately attached to the concept of the life/death cyclic nature of stars/c-stars in a steady-state system.
Did Carla really possess an intricate understanding of RS to accurately profess that a galaxy is really just a solar system?
Understanding of the RS is not necessary for that correction to be made as long as there was a distinction in her psyche between the scale of a solar system and the scale of what we commonly refer to as a galaxy. I personally don't think chanellings are simply a hypnotic regression of information held within the contents of an individual psyche, but are a) communication of an existence that makes use of the contents of the psyche of that individual acting as a conduit for the communication as the limiting context for what can be relayed and/or b) information buried within the collective unconscious which does have access to that type of information.
I would just think they would take the metaphysical consequences into account.
Why?
The metaphysical is bound to the physical. s/t, t/s
To take a page (or 2) from Larson's book:
Dewey Larson, [u]Beyond Space and Time[/u] pg. 41-43 wrote:In view of the firm standing of the "Whatever can exist does exist" principle in the physical universe, our next concern will be to lay the foundation for extrapolating it to existence in general. As brought out in chapter 3, it has been definitely established of the physical universe is composed entirely of discrete units of motion. Further development of the consequences of the postulates that define the theoretical system reveals that the large-scale action of the universe is cyclic, the magnitude of the Cycles being determined by the finite life of the structures into which the units of motion agregate. This means that the total number of units of motion existing in the physical universe is finite. Thus we may expand the previous statement about the content of the universe and say that we have established that the sole constituent of the physical universe is a certain finite quantity of a particular kind of motion.

The conclusion is not assumption or speculation. The validity of the entire Reciprocal System including the first postulate in the foregoing extension has been established with physical certainty. The fact of the physical universe is composed entirely of a finite quantity of a particular kind of motion is therefore scientific knowledge as defined in chapter 2. It then follows that there must be other existences--at least other motions. Ordinary common sense is sufficient to tell us that we cannot justify taking the stand that the only thing that can possibly exist is a specific quantity of a particular kind of motion. The process of inductive reasoning merely reaches the same conclusion in a more systematic way. It identifies the physical universe as a special case of motion in general, and enables us to extrapolate the information of the unrestricted type that is available about this special case to the general situation. One the basis of the principle that what can exist does exist, which we can now extrapolate to motion in general, we arrive at these conclusions:

1. There are finite quantities of the same kind of motion existing as independent universes.
2. There are other universes based on motion that is multidimensional, or otherwise different from that which prevails in our physical universe.
3. There is a general form of existence free from some or all of the limitations that apply to the individual universes.

The possibility that there may be some other entities, distinct from motion, that are capable of generating systems such as the universes, also suggests itself. But when we examine the motion of which the physical universe is constituted, we find the nature of this motion is not defined, other than by the way it enters into the basic mathematical relation. This is a relationship between a quantity x (which we identify as space) and its reciprocal 1/x (which we identify as time). When the quotient x/(1/x) is 1, we say that it is one unit of motion; but in fact, it is one unit of a not otherwise identified quantity. We cannot substitute some identified quantity (that is, one which has properties other than those expressed in the equation) for motion, as those other properties would destroy the pure reciprocal relation that is the basis of the system that we call the physical universe. On the other hand if we substitute some quantity that does not have any such additional properties, there is no way by which it could be distinguished from motion. It does not appear, therefore, that the concept of other entities capable of generating systems similar to universes of motion can be entertained.

In the subsequent discussion, we will continue to utilize the designation "metaphysical" and its etymological sense as referring to all that is beyond physics. On this basis, any existence outside our physical universe is metaphysical existence, the region in which it exists is the metaphysical region, and any universes other than our own that exists in this region are metaphysical universes. When we have occasion to refer to existence in general, including that which is inside, as well as that which is outside, the various discrete universes, we will regard it as located in the general metaphysical region. It should be understood that the term "outside," as used in this connection, means simply "not a part of", and has no spatial or temporal implications.

The possibility of the existence of other universes is an idea that has intrigued many thinkers. Even without the significant additional information that has led to the conclusions of this present work, many observers have realized that it is quite possible that the physical universe, as we know it, is not the sum total of all existence, as the term "universe" implies, but merely a portion of a larger system, an entity that, as has been suggested, we might well call a "multiverse."
With all our wide vision we may be looking at only a small part of a grand creation. Out universe with its billions of galaxies may he only one among many. (Vannevar Bush)
The advances in theoretical understanding that have been accomplished in the investigation being reported in this work have made the existence of these other universes probable, but definite verification is not possible because, so far as we know, there is no contact between our universe and any of the others. The reverse side of the picture is that, by reason of this lack of contact, the question as to the existence of other universes is purely academic so far as we are concerned. The metaphysical existences that have a bearing on human life are those of the general type, which, by reason of their freedom from the kind of limitations that apply to the separate universes, are located in the whole, of which the individual universes are separate and limited parts.
And now a page (+1/2) from a --daniel paper:

[quote="Daniel Phoenix III, "Homo Sapiens Ethicus Life, Death, Reincarnation and Ascension" pg. 16-18"]
Overview of the Mortal and Immortal Realms

The mortal realms are the realms in which we have physical existence. In the Reciprocal System, physical can be either spatial or temporal, so the mortal realms are either existence in the material sector of 3D space or the cosmic sector of 3D time. When your consciousness is in one sector, the other sector has the appearance of the “afterlife.” Most theological conventions consider where your consciousness currently resides is the mortal realm and its conjugate, the afterlife, is the other realm.

What many folks do not realize is that even when you die, you’re still “mortal”—just mortal in the afterlife realm and will, after a deathtime of experiences, get old, be born and come back to life, here. It is a symmetry of existence between the matter of 3D space and the ether of 3D time. The mortal and afterlife realms are just opposite faces of the same coin, so when you go around the edge of that coin, you die on one side to be born on the other. The primary difference is that physical existence is valued by space (sensation, thinking, distance, clock time) and the afterlife existence is valued by time (intuition, feeling, duration, clock space).

In the mortal realm, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”49 and one is valued (judged) by their actions, not their intentions. The material realm (life) is based on spatial relationships—the purpose of our physical body is to sense and manipulate space. The cosmic realm (afterlife) is based on temporal relationships—the purpose there is to intuit and manipulate time. Both cases require interaction between consciousness and the environment.

The immortal realms are reached by the ascension process, breaking the cycle of reincarnation. To use the coin analogy, it is very difficult to jump off the face of a coin, but easy to do when you are making the transition around the edge. The most notable difference between the mortal and immortal realms is that the immortal realms exist beyond space and time, and as such, the valuing systems that we are accustomed to are very different—they take on a reciprocal form. There is little difference between thought and manifestation, so valuing is done by a concept similar to intention.

However, in the immortal realm, “the path to mortality is paved with actions.” It is from this premise that we get the non-interference directives of higher beings, such as the ascended Ancients of Stargate SG-1. Consider: once you have ascended, you did it because you no longer need to experience the physical interactions (sensation and intuition) present in the life and afterlife realms. In other words, you have graduated High School and have started attending College. But… if one continues to have an interest in interacting with the physical realms, then obviously you did not complete a lesson there, which is why you have the motivation to continue interacting with the physical. Once that link is formed it tends to get stronger, as an ascended being can greatly affect the affairs of the mortal realms due to the fact that their thoughts will manifest as structure and action, substance and force. Eventually, they get sucked back down into the reincarnation cycle to figure out, and finish off, the lesson that they failed to learn. So, when one gets “cast out” of the immortal realm, they return to mortal status with some knowledge of higher learning—but that knowledge is often misunderstood, as the mortal mind/brain does not have the mechanisms to comprehend non-corporeal lessons.50

Ascended Laws of Non-Interference

Do interactions between the mortal and immortal realms occur? Yes, frequently. But it is seldom a physical interaction. It normally occurs during a ‘tween time (an in-between time, the edge of the coin, high noon, midnight, sunrise, sunset, birthdays, anniversaries, doorways, windows, bridges, shadows… any time a new cycle starts, or opposites become connected). And it is done at a thought or conceptual level that can provide some very insightful information, but is still up to an individual to act on it, physically, since that is the dictate of mortal existence. It is from this interaction that we get the concept of spirit guides, ascended masters, avatars, guardians, et al.

There are times when the thoughts and intentions of someone in the mortal realm pokes through to the immortal realm and gets the attention of immortals. It is usually associated with a flash of insight about the nature of one’s purpose in life. It does not happen often but when it does, most choose to ignore it. (Remember that the immortal realm is valued by intention: if a mortal does not intend to follow through by indicating no interest, putting it on hold, or just denying it, the offer of interaction will be withdrawn—it is usually a one-shot deal.)

When an offer comes from the immortal realm, it indicates that the recipient has a quality of character that would allow them to do bigger things than what biological existence would have them do.

Something to note is that an immortal guide will never tell you to “do” anything nor act on their behalf. They have no interest in the mortal realms, but do have an interest in the larger picture—of which you can make a difference, if you choose to do so. If you encounter a non-corporeal entity that wants you to perform or act on their behalf, you probably have another mortal inbetween lives that has used projection to gain access to this side. The immortals simply give you access to an enormous realm of knowledge and experience, and like a librarian, will assist you in finding what you are looking for—but you will still have to read the book and act on the knowledge.51

Interaction between the realms is a free-will choice, and hopefully an informed choice.[/quote]

Does metaphysical interaction occur? Yes. Are metaphysical existences bonded to physical ones? Inasmuch as interaction with the mortal realm and immortal realm occurs, specifically when the rules of noninterference are not followed and beings "fall" back to the previous state of existence, perhaps, but I'm hard pressed to say that the experience bonds the realms together. I should know too, (or am coming to know rather) seeing as I'm fairly confident that this happened to me prior to (at least) this incarnation.
And they are "superior" species.
Technologically, maybe. Spiritually, I find the idea doubtful.
"Living is not necessary, but navigation is." --Pompey
"Navigation is necessary in order to live." --Me

Post Reply