Newly discovered connection between 3rd and 8th density via Tarot/Moon cycles

[Navaratna]

Hamsa Yoga

Mild Nsfw warning* Maybe it'll look like this once we get to 10th density
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdsCGm4bP3E

[Navaratna]

Some ideas are complicated

[Asolsutsesvyl]

I've been thinking about Navaratna's cross-referencing and calculations since being sent a PM by him asking to have a look at the thread "I found a correlation between Hindu Chinese and Mesoamerican timekeeping in Ra". After I replied to that, he's made more threads exploring further and more related stuff has come in, and by now I have more to say than back then.

I got another PM pointing me to the first thread listed below, but I also make this reply to the other threads in this short list:
- "The proof of the incarnation of Edgar Cayce as an 8th density entity"
- "The Pyramid was a 7th density thought form. Visual proof"
- "Newly discovered connection between 3rd and 8th density via Tarot/Moon cycles"

The density problem

What does "density" mean? That's the big problem with the stuff Navaratna has so far put together. He's exploring symbolic and numerical structures, while re-using words to describe them which do not really fit. The exploration isn't bad, but the sloppy language use is, because it turns things into a contradictory muddle.

The mapping of physical objects, and physical symbols, to various densities - and similarly with other related spiritual concepts - only works on a symbolic level, and cannot go very far. The reason it cannot go very far is that categorical boundaries are defined in connection with the framework of densities. If those are ignored, then contradictions will result.

7D is at the center of such logical problems. 7D represents a unity about which little more can be said than that everything is one in 7D. The entire cosmos could be described as a "7D thought form", but with such descriptions, all differentiations which make some physical objects more or less 7D-related disappear. 7D erases the difference between all separate things and beings.

To move past 7D would mean to move past a complete unity of/with this creation to a new or different creation. Ra's description of that is that until that happens, knowledge of what it means is missing. All attempts to fill in the blanks result in using things we know or can at least imagine to describe things we can neither know nor even imagine - not even at the 6D level.

Whatever is meant when referring to a person or thing as 8D or 9D, etc., doing so is logically incompatible with the Ra scale of densitities if you try to say that any distinct person or thing in our creation is more related to 8D or 9D than any other.

For different stuff, different words are needed

Using old words to describe completely different, new things results in confusion. Seriously, if Navaratna came up with a clear and unique terminology, and avoided phrasing things in a way which causes logical contradictions, then it would be more interesting to read.

Maybe Navaratna's big problem is that he hasn't found the words he needs to describe the big and intricate structures he examines. I mean, go right ahead and make your own unique terminology if you don't find a good match elsewhere. It would make it much easier for others to have a look and follow along in the reasoning.

I think that Navaratna's exploration is actually interesting. But some work would be needed if it is to be communicated in a way that would better allow others to join the exploration.

[sillypumpkins]

I think that Navaratna's exploration is actually interesting. But some work would be needed if it is to be communicated in a way that would better allow others to join the exploration.

I agree. I think the information/exploration is interesting, but ultimately it's not conveyed or organized in a way that is conducive to a fruitful conversation for anyone.

Not tryna diss you Navaratna. I think you've got some interesting thoughts here. I just think it would be easier for everyone if they weren't communicated in such a heavy-handed way. I know that these connections you make are "clear" to you, but that doesn't mean they are for everyone else.

I'd love to engage in conversation about this stuff every once in a while, however the information isn't presented in a way of "let's discuss this," its more like, "everyone, look at this, this is what this means, and this means that, but then look at this!!" There's really not a lot of room for anyone else to speak, because you're doing all of it!! lol

Anywaaaaay

[Navaratna]

Ra repeatedly states all is one, trying to say the answer is somewhere beyond is not interpreting the idea correctly