"Within each density there are seven sub-densities"

[zenmaster]

Given Ra's explanation in session 16 that each density has 7 sub-densities (and each sub-density, 7 sub-sub densities, etc), how would these sub-densities be expressed, say in 1st density?

Presumably, 1st density pertains primarily to the gross-material and to the bulk of our physical "laws". So, other than something like a narrow band of light radiation, is there an identifiable 7-fold structure, or hierarchy, or ...?

[ayadew]

Just throwing out some thoughts:

1st sub-density of our 1st density could be some fundamental particle which takes form. (The sub-densities of this particle would be the parts it's made of, and what those are made of - etc to infinity)
This fundamental particle is thus a whole universe of it's own, much like ours. (This means that when we reach (8th) = 1st density of another system when we're all one). Not an encouraging thought perhaps, but it's one way to view the great mystery not even Ra knows.

In any case, the 7th sub-density of our 1st density I'd say to be crystals. They're extremely complex in composition in total harmony with the outside world giving them many different properties. They're the closest thing to 'alive' (2D) you can get in my eyes.
I'm currently studying geology, so I'm very excited about crystals.

[Ali Quadir]

Yes, this sounds about right

As a side effect, exploring ever smaller particles is to a certain extent pointless. Because there is no "Smallest" particle. You can't get to the bottom of it. However, it is useful to understand the interaction between larger and smaller particles to get an insight in the bigger picture.

[Phoenix]

In my own understandings. The seventh ray is not there for study. I don't know why this is.

Perhaps it is because it 'gives and takes of it's own accord' and so is not represented.

You could see clearly, a second density creature moving through a 4th density perception of it's ray (Love) as oppose to a second or first.

[Lavazza]

As a side effect, exploring ever smaller particles is to a certain extent pointless. Because there is no "Smallest" particle. You can't get to the bottom of it. However, it is useful to understand the interaction between larger and smaller particles to get an insight in the bigger picture.

Actually from what I've read on the subject (and because I cannot resist a debate ), we cannot conclude that there is no smallest particle because we have not yet been able to devise a means of seeing anything smaller than certain scales.

The math behind String Theory for example poses that there are elements of the physical universe (strings) that are so incredibly tiny that we may never directly observe them. Which of course is why it may always be a theory only, unless we are able to collect evidence of their existence by other means. Check this out:

A Sense of Scale
The strings of string theory are unimaginably small. And when we say "unimaginably," we mean it: Your average string, if it exists, is about 10-33 centimeters long. That's a point followed by 32 zeros and then a 1. It's a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter. (Physicists stick to metric.) Or think of it this way: if an atom were magnified to the size of the solar system, a string would be the size of a tree. Yup, real small.

I might also present Zeno's paradox for your consideration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes) In short Zeno suggests that motion is impossible because to move anywhere requires us to reach the mid-way point of that destination first. But if there is no smallest particle (or unit of space) then there would be an infinity of half-way points to reach first. Yet it is a paradox to say so because regardless of this, we reach our destinations when we wish to travel somewhere. SO I might say that since we can go places, a smallest unit must exist.

Sorry to derail the thread so heavily with these ramblings. I've had my morning coffee and my brain is jumping around in my skull.

[Ali Quadir]

Actually from what I've read on the subject (and because I cannot resist a debate ),

Yield to temptation... It may not pass your way again !!

we cannot conclude that there is no smallest particle because we have not yet been able to devise a means of seeing anything smaller than certain scales.

This is most certainly true, and even if we see smaller than those scales there is always a scale below it that we cannot see. My position is inherently unprovable. I was speaking from Nassim Haramein's perspective where the universe is a fractal. At a certain point it just starts to repeat itself. It has no edges.

Also to argue for your side of the equation a little more (Which is a lousy way to win a discussion ) there's the problem of the planck constant, a theoretical minimal size, below which space itself is undividable. And there's a noise factor. Apparently below a certain size around 10^-16 I believe. At any rate just at our current maximal resolution. The universe begins to act really chaotic and you just kinda lose grips with causality.

Still, I think Nassim is right and there is no smallest particle. These are just artefacts of our physics. Also note that to measure the very small we need extraordinary amounts of energy which one could argue upsets the normal behavior of nature at that level. Since that energy at some point is likely going to be converted to matter. If we measure that generated matter we're not actually measuring the small.

A Sense of Scale
The strings of string theory are unimaginably small. And when we say "unimaginably," we mean it: Your average string, if it exists, is about 10-33 centimeters long. That's a point followed by 32 zeros and then a 1. It's a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter. (Physicists stick to metric.) Or think of it this way: if an atom were magnified to the size of the solar system, a string would be the size of a tree. Yup, real small.

That is itty bitty Incidentally the elegant universe you linked to is a brilliant documentary on the subject. I see that it's present on google videos. If anyone is interested in the subject and hasn't seen it, this one is recommended

I might also present Zeno's paradox for your consideration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes) In short Zeno suggests that motion is impossible because to move anywhere requires us to reach the mid-way point of that destination first. But if there is no smallest particle (or unit of space) then there would be an infinity of half-way points to reach first. Yet it is a paradox to say so because regardless of this, we reach our destinations when we wish to travel somewhere. SO I might say that since we can go places, a smallest unit must exist.

Well actually I do have an answer on that one. Zeno's paradox is only a paradox because his perception of movement is wrong. These infinite amount of half way points you speak about are each achieved in an infinitesimal time. Lifting the total travel time back into our normal realm and resolving the paradox. Basically zeno introduced an artificial infinity. The same goes for any other type of activity that can be seen as infinitely dividable. And then suggested it was an impossible hurdle, which it clearly is not. I think Zeno's paradox is an artefact of his model. Just like the infinitely small is obscured by artefacts in our scientific model. But like I said, my position is inherently unprovable. I can't prove any of it, and it's not based on modern scientific insight (Unless Nassim counts ).

To summarize, I don't have a real answer to your suggestion that there might indeed be a smallest particle, I spoke from the fractal Point of view. But that's a point of view and points of view don't serve as actual proof. But zeno's paradox fortunately was added in by you for me to save a little bit of my honor Thank you !

Sorry to derail the thread so heavily with these ramblings. I've had my morning coffee and my brain is jumping around in my skull.

Like I said, yield to temptation Especially in these subjects. Philosophy rocks! In spite of lousy job chances.

Did Lavazza drink Lavazza?

[Lavazza]

This is most certainly true, and even if we see smaller than those scales there is always a scale below it that we cannot see. My position is inherently unprovable. I was speaking from Nassim Haramein's perspective where the universe is a fractal. At a certain point it just starts to repeat itself. It has no edges.

I must admit the idea of the universe as a fractal makes a lot of sense to me in a way. From a philosophical point of view it feels quite elegant. I will have to investigate Haramein's work.

Also to argue for your side of the equation a little more (Which is a lousy way to win a discussion )

As I think I have also just become guilt of...!

there's the problem of the planck constant, a theoretical minimal size, below which space itself is undividable. And there's a noise factor. Apparently below a certain size around 10^-16 I believe. At any rate just at our current maximal resolution. The universe begins to act really chaotic and you just kinda lose grips with causality.

Indeed, to what I think you are speaking is know as Quantum physics or Quantum mechanics. At that small level, much smaller than the atomic scale, all known physics get a bit wonky. As explained quite well in 'the Elegant Universe', time is no longer a constant, things can be in multiple locations at once, rabbits pull magicians out of hats... the list goes on.

Still, I think Nassim is right and there is no smallest particle. These are just artefacts of our physics. Also note that to measure the very small we need extraordinary amounts of energy which one could argue upsets the normal behavior of nature at that level. Since that energy at some point is likely going to be converted to matter. If we measure that generated matter we're not actually measuring the small.

Extraordinary amounts of energy? I have not heard of this before, but I have heard something that is similar to what you are speaking of. I believe it's called the observer effect, wherein physicists learned (in the 70's, I think) that they themselves were altering the outcome of their sub-atomic experiments because of their observation. You're probably already familiar with the now famous (at least in the science world) double slit experiment.

That is itty bitty Incidentally the elegant universe you linked to is a brilliant documentary on the subject. I see that it's present on google videos. If anyone is interested in the subject and hasn't seen it, this one is recommended

Quoted for complete agreement. Here it is part 1 of the documentary on Google Video if any following the discussion are interested. (It seems you'll have to go to the actually GV site to see the whole thing. But it's all free.)

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-1322493346942339345&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

Well actually I do have an answer on that one. Zeno's paradox is only a paradox because his perception of movement is wrong. These infinite amount of half way points you speak about are each achieved in an infinitesimal time. Lifting the total travel time back into our normal realm and resolving the paradox. Basically zeno introduced an artificial infinity. The same goes for any other type of activity that can be seen as infinitely dividable. And then suggested it was an impossible hurdle, which it clearly is not. I think Zeno's paradox is an artefact of his model. Just like the infinitely small is obscured by artefacts in our scientific model. But like I said, my position is inherently unprovable. I can't prove any of it, and it's not based on modern scientific insight (Unless Nassim counts ).

Well, I might suggest that the paradox still exists even after your explanation. The key is with the concept of infinity. An infinite number by it's very nature has no end. If you typed a number 1 on your keyboard, and then held down the 0 key such that it created a sting of zeros, the lifetime of the universe would expire before you could enter enough zeros to even make a sub-atomically small scratch on the, well, infinitely huge number that an infinite number would be. You could take the number on your computer after billions of years of entering zeros, and then take it to the power of the same number and it would make absolutely no difference. In fact, it's utterly useless to even attempt thinking about measuring such a number- the measurements are completely meaningless. My only point in making such an illustration of the infinity concept is to show that IF indeed there is no smallest unit of space, or smallest particle, then regardless of the amount of time it would take to cross such small halves of distance makes no difference, because you will always, always have more halves in which you would need to first cross. Even if you had, well, all the time of the universe at your disposal to attempt to cross them.

Yet as Zeno suggests, and we obviously experience, we cross them anyway! So what gives? It's a paradox with no resolve, scientifically, in my opinion. I might invoke some LOO principals though. The fact that we can move at all may be proof that we're living in a grand illusion.

Also, have no fear of needing to prove or disprove our concepts, we're already out of the arena of proof so it makes little difference I'm just loving the dialog as I'm sure you are also.

To summarize, I don't have a real answer to your suggestion that there might indeed be a smallest particle, I spoke from the fractal Point of view. But that's a point of view and points of view don't serve as actual proof. But zeno's paradox fortunately was added in by you for me to save a little bit of my honor Thank you !

Indeed I think Zeno serves both of us to some extent. To think that Zeno thought all this stuff up thousands of years ago- amazing.

Like I said, yield to temptation Especially in these subjects. Philosophy rocks! In spite of lousy job chances.

Did Lavazza drink Lavazza?

I'm a philosophy nut too. Ever listen to Philosophy Talk, the radio show? link: http://www.philosophytalk.org/

Not Lavazza unfortunately, it's not as common here in the states as it was in Australia. Just lousy starbucks.

[3D Sunset]

Given Ra's explanation in session 16 that each density has 7 sub-densities (and each sub-density, 7 sub-sub densities, etc), how would these sub-densities be expressed, say in 1st density?

Presumably, 1st density pertains primarily to the gross-material and to the bulk of our physical "laws". So, other than something like a narrow band of light radiation, is there an identifiable 7-fold structure, or hierarchy, or ...?

Hi Zen,

Ra talks at some length about what goes on during 1D. I think it is important to note though, that just as 1D is the density in which a planet or sun differentiates itself from its Logos sun or glalaxy, so to is it not until 2D that individual entities begin to "live" and differentiate themselves from their Logos planet. So when we look at 1D, I think that we must look at a planet or solar system in toto, rather than separating out its constituent parts.

Questioner: Could you tell me about this first density of planetary entities?

Ra: I am Ra. Each step recapitulates intelligent infinity in its discovery of awareness. In a planetary environment all begins in what you would call chaos, energy undirected and random in its infinity. Slowly, in your terms of understanding, there forms a focus of self-awareness. Thus the Logos moves. Light comes to form the darkness, according to the co-Creator’s patterns and vibratory rhythms, so constructing a certain type of experience.

This begins with first density which is the density of consciousness, the mineral and water life upon the planet learning from fire and wind the awareness of being. This is the first density.

Questioner: Could you tell me about this first density of planetary entities?

Ra: I am Ra. Each step recapitulates intelligent infinity in its discovery of awareness. In a planetary environment all begins in what you would call chaos, energy undirected and random in its infinity. Slowly, in your terms of understanding, there forms a focus of self-awareness. Thus the Logos moves. Light comes to form the darkness, according to the co-Creator’s patterns and vibratory rhythms, so constructing a certain type of experience.

This begins with first density which is the density of consciousness, the mineral and water life upon the planet learning from fire and wind the awareness of being. This is the first density.

Questioner: How does this first density then progress to greater awareness?

Ra: I am Ra. The spiraling energy, which is the characteristic of what you call “light,” moves in a straight line spiral thus giving spirals an inevitable vector upwards to a more comprehensive beingness with regards to intelligent infinity. Thus, first dimensional beingness strives towards the second-density lessons of a type of awareness which includes growth rather than dissolution or random change.

Could you tell me how, in the first density, wind and fire teach earth and water?

Ra: I am Ra. You may see the air and fire of that which is chaos as literally illuminating and forming the formless, for earth and water were, in the timeless state, unformed. As the active principles of fire and air blow and burn incandescently about that which nurtures that which is to come, the water learns to become sea, lake, and river offering the opportunity for viable life. The earth learns to be shaped, thus offering the opportunity for viable life.

Questioner: Thank you. Yesterday you stated that planets in first density are in a timeless state to begin with. Can you tell me how the effect that we appreciate as time comes into being?

Ra: I am Ra. We have just described to you the state of beingness of each Logos. The process by which space/time comes into continuum form is a function of the careful building, shall we say, of an entire or whole plan of vibratory rates, densities, and potentials. When this plan has coalesced in the thought complexes of Love, then the physical manifestations begin to appear; this first manifestation stage being awareness or consciousness. At the point at which this coalescence is at the living-ness or being-ness point, the point or fountainhead of beginning, space/time then begins to unroll its scroll of living-ness.

It would seem to me from the above, that the last sub-density in 1D is that of awareness or consciousness of being, which is the prerequisite for entry into 2D (note that Ra even describes this as "living" in space/time). Similarly, the first sub-density would be one of random (and timeless) movement progressing into one of molding and forming of the the earth and water by fire and wind, which I would take to be the second sub-density. Although the third through sixth sub-densities may have clear delineations, they are not directly alluded to by Ra, they would seem to represent various steps of greater order leading to awareness.

I suspect that this is not the type of discussion that you were after, though. Does it help in any way better elucidate your question?

Love and Light,

3D Sunset

[zenmaster]

It would seem to me from the above, that the last sub-density in 1D is that of awareness or consciousness of being, which is the prerequisite for entry into 2D (note that Ra even describes this as "living" in space/time). Similarly, the first sub-density would be one of random (and timeless) movement progressing into one of molding and forming of the the earth and water by fire and wind, which I would take to be the second sub-density.
Although the third through sixth sub-densities may have clear delineations, they are not directly alluded to by Ra, they would seem to represent various steps of greater order leading to awareness.

I suspect that this is not the type of discussion that you were after, though. Does it help in any way better elucidate your question?

Thanks for the excerpts. They do provide helpful context! I suppose one would have to understand how the 4 elements may work together in a dynamic of increasingly complexity. We should be able to (intuitively as least) see how each stage culminates to provide the groundwork for the subsequent stage.

Was reading a website that attributed the 4 elements to some psychological functions (which presumably have 1st-density analogs):

Air = Thought, Fire = Desire, Water = Emotions, Earth = Stability

Perhaps also, using Jungian typology - Air = Thinking, Fire = Intuition, Water = Feeling, Earth = Sensation ?

Jolande Jacobi, one of Jung's followers, mentioned that Jung intended his four functions as an explanation, not only of psychological behavior, but also in some way of the physical nature of space and time.

So in space/time or time/space terminology, we could have:

Air (Thinking) = space from standpoint space/time
attributes: directed, objective, causal, valuing, yang, grounded, static, linear

Water (Feeling) = time from standpoint of space/time
attributes: undirected, subjective, acausal, valuing, yin, ungrounded, dynamic, circular

Earth (Sensation) = space from standpoint of time/space
attributes: undirected, objective, causal, non-valuing, yang, grounded, static

Intuition (Fire) = time from standpoint of time/space
attributes: directed, subjective, acausal, non-valuing, yin, ungrounded, dynamic

It should be understood that just as space has no meaning without time and vice versa, in dynamic terms, thinking, sensation, feeling and intuition mutually interact with each other (and have no meaning in the absence of each other).

[paddy]

When I read this: "other than something like a narrow band of light radiation, is there an identifiable 7-fold structure, or hierarchy, or ...?", then the first thing that came to mind was Gurdjieff's concepts of the Octave, "Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Ti Do...", a fundamental theory of music and vibration in the universe. Here, the intervals between notes offers a seven fold structure. It seems a "Ra" to "Gurdjieff" bridge of some sort or another. (The model could be considered a Musical Oracle of sorts, depending upon one's perspective and interpretation.)

The mention of the 4 elements likely connects to a concept of Alchemy. For example, the idea that one may accelerate evolution by means of undergoing state changes may relate to the notion of clearing Ray Centers: of up-leveling blockages (related to them) in a way that allows one to more quickly change states. As energetic flow improves, possibly the potential for evolution improves. The notion of evolution may then tie back to the concept of experiencing various densities. This may be like having a variety of music to listen to, (by metaphor.)

As one listens to music, there may be preferences developed to one type of music over another and this may relate to taste. The concept of taste may then relate to harvest, as if there may be some preferential taste component. If a preferential taste is aligned to healthy choices then this may offer some evolutionary advantage.

That is, a person who prefers healthy food may be more likely to eat healthy food and then benefit from good health as a byproduct. With good health may come the chance for a greater quality of life. Possibly one of the great lessons of our relative human experience is to learn what that is all about: how our choices for a good harvest may directly improve our chances for greater quality of life.

paddy