Some Technical Terms Defined

[Sacred Fool]

 
Some may find this helpful.


PREVIEW
 
Intelligent Infinity = The Creatrix (Love) in latent state prior to a sense of differentiated identity.

Consciousness = A field of that original thought of love.  It is unitary: yours and mine are the same and everything created carries this field.

Logos = A differentiated field of the original thought after free will has worked upon the Creatrix's mystery.

Intelligent Energy = Love acted upon by free will of which creation is composed.

Spirit = That which, though unseen, feels to be a presence or a sense of guidance.

You = An instrument through which the Creatrix's infinite love and light may flow, and from whose open heart that same love and light may be blessed and allowed to move into the planetary energy web so that your every thought of love makes a difference in the energy of your beloved Earth.


https://llresearch.org/transcripts/issue..._0213.aspx

Consciousness is that field, shall we say, which carries the one original Thought of love. Our consciousness and your consciousness are one. From that field of consciousness, each of those within this room, every particle and iota of matter, as you call it in your universe, every mote of light, carries the same consciousness. It is as though you were an infinite, intricate, mysterious puzzle. We give this instrument the vision of putting together a jig-saw puzzle, yet this puzzle is infinite. However, you fit in just a certain way into the integrity and wholeness of the one infinite Creator and into the one creation.

Spirit, as we use the term, is that portion of consciousness which is not manifest in your world. You may apprehend spirit in many ways. You may apprehend spirit as the voice of your conscience, your higher self, or your guidance. You may apprehend spirit as that energy that surrounds you, that comes to you from the trees, the animals, the plants, the wind, the earth, fire and water.

The term “intelligent infinity” could be linked with the term “consciousness” in that intelligent infinity is the Creator in Its latent state, that state which the Creator enjoys before It asks Itself, “Who am I?” and decides of Its own free will to bring into being a creation of parts of Itself that will give It information about who It is. Once that free will has worked upon the infinite Creator’s mystery, to create a field, that field is called the Logos, the one Thought. That Thought is love. Thusly, every iota of the infinite creation is love.

Intelligent energy is love acted upon by free will to make the manifest creation of the Father. Its nature is light. When we greet you and when we say farewell to you in the love and in the light of the one infinite Creator, we are greeting you in the name and essence of all that there is. We are setting our intention to vibrate in our conversation with you in full awareness of this love and this light. As you can see, spirit could be associated with the concept of intelligent energy, but only loosely, for intelligent energy is that which creates all that there is in its manifested form. Spirit, on the other hand, is that which is not manifest. However, it is that which manifests itself to you as an entity within the third-density world of Earth, and in this wise we would point out that you, each of you, are that center, that nexus, that combines space/time and the physical reality, and time/space and the unseen worlds.

It is not for the animals to do this. It is not for the wind and the water, fire and earth to do this. It is for that miracle of self-awareness that you are to hold, in one fragile yet eternal shape, all that there is in the temporal world and all that there is in infinity and eternity. It is into your instrument that the Creator’s infinite energy of love and light can flow. It is from your open heart that that same love and light may be blessed by you and allowed to move into the planetary energy web, so that every thought of love that you have makes a difference in the energy of your beloved Earth.

 

[Dtris]

Great find.

The only thing I will say is that consciousness as we understand it is such a nebulous concept that it is hard to put into words. Just that subject alone could probably fill multiple books from a channeled source.

[Sacred Fool]

The only thing I will say is that consciousness as we understand it is such a nebulous concept that it is hard to put into words. Just that subject alone could probably fill multiple books from a channeled source.

Agreed.  I'll see if I can mine more material in that vein.  If so, I'll dump it here.
  

[Sacred Fool]

 
I came across this little bit.  The part about many minds I find weirdly intriguing.

The mind of man is not created so that it is isolated. It is created to be in contact with all consciousness at all times. It is possible through understanding, which is not intellectual in form, to realize the single truth that allows man of Earth to remove this limitation or separation from the infinite mind. It is only necessary that the individual avail himself to this infinite mind through the practice of daily meditation. It has been found by some of the people dwelling upon your planet. However, it was necessary for them to seek this mind through meditation.

At this time I would like to continue for a very short time on another subject. It is the subject of the principle of telepathic communications.

There are many ways of achieving a contact such as this one. There are several ways we can impress an intellectual thought upon an instrument. The form of contact that we are using most of the time with this instrument is a form that presents to him a concept, or a portion of a concept. He is able to use his own fabrications of language to describe the concept. At other times we use muscular control, to aid the instrument in forming words to fit the concepts impressed upon him. If the concept is of a totally new or different nature from his thinking or his realization in meditation, we use a great deal of muscular. control. If the concept is familiar to him, we allow him great leeway in his intellectual analysis of the concept, and therefore his verbalization of it.

You can experiment by saying a word to yourself without speaking. You will hear it in your mind. One part of your mind has said the word, and another part has heard it, although you have made no sound. It is possible for two, or more, or all minds to work in this manner. It is necessary that they don’t, for this could result in an unimaginable confusion and constant noise in the mind. However, it is possible, by willing it to, just as you hear the unspoken word that you have thought in your mind, to direct the same word to another mind. It is also possible to direct a muscular action, a response, to another mind. It is also possible to impress an intellectual concept upon another mind. It is also possible to impress a non-intellectual concept upon another mind.

These are just a few of the simple principles of communication, mind-to-mind. We have some difficulty at times, and there is confusion. This instrument is aware of the possibility of generating thoughts and repeating them as if they were from a source external to him. My friends, I have stated earlier that there in only one source. It is the Creator.

https://llresearch.org/transcripts/issue..._0117.aspx

  

[Steppingfeet]

A challenging and fraught thing to do, attempting to define these Big Concepts so concisely. Nevertheless, understanding terms is an effort well worth the making, I think.

One question: Can you clarify what you mean by "Creatrix"? In the first definition you used the capitalized "Love" as a synonym, I believe. So I would think that you mean Logos, the Prime Architect of the octave or universe. Also, does the "ix" suffix signify the feminine?

I'm sure you've explained this elsewhere in the forums.

[Sacred Fool]

A challenging and fraught thing to do, attempting to define these Big Concepts so concisely. Nevertheless, understanding terms is an effort well worth the making, I think.

Don't blame me.  THEY started it!!!!!


I think it helps to line the concepts up this way to view the relationships between them.

One question: Can you clarify what you mean by "Creatrix"? In the first definition you used the capitalized "Love" as a synonym, I believe. So I would think that you mean Logos, the Prime Architect of the octave or universe. Also, does the "ix" suffix signify the feminine?

One answer.  Yeah, maybe I introduced some unnecessary confusion with "(Love)," for she becomes love in her active form, not while in repose.  And yes, "-trix" is a Latinate suffix denoting feminine gender.  (Other examples: aviatrix, directrix...)  It happens to be a personal preference and, therefore, like totally transient in importance, generally speaking.

  

[Steppingfeet]

Don't blame me.  THEY started it!!!!!

Well, they eat intelligent energy for breakfast. I mean, we do too, but stepped down a few million times until we have a delicious bowl of oat clusters cereal.

One answer.  Yeah, maybe I introduced some unnecessary confusion with "(Love)," for she becomes love in her active form, not while in repose.  And yes, "-trix" is a Latinate suffix denoting feminine gender.  (Other examples: aviatrix, directrix...)  It happens to be a personal preference and, therefore, like totally transient in importance, generally speaking.

Introducing idiosyncratic words understood by one into the definition could illuminate the target word less than intended. I'd suggest at least a clarifier.

So I understand you to mean "Creator," essentially, just with a feminine tilt. While "Creator" is gender-neutral, thanks to the West's Abrahamic past, it is likely seen with a male hue. (I don't know how much gender bias is projected onto ultimate reality in Eastern thought, or elsewhere.)

"Creatrix" is a colorful change, and I like how for me it evokes both the active Creative Principle and the receptive matrix or environment into which Its glory manifests.

[Ymarsakar]

You all still need to eat food? Hrm...

[Sacred Fool]

So I understand you to mean "Creator," essentially, just with a feminine tilt. While "Creator" is gender-neutral, thanks to the West's Abrahamic past, it is likely seen with a male hue. (I don't know how much gender bias is projected onto ultimate reality in Eastern thought, or elsewhere.)

"Creatrix" is a colorful change, and I like how for me it evokes both the active Creative Principle and the receptive matrix or environment into which Its glory manifests.

If you think about it, new humans are  created from woman, customarily with a small contribution from a man.  Same goes for other critters.  In the West, Nature is presented as a female, but in the best known Near Eastern scriptures, the god figure and Creator is a male deity.

In what we call Hinduism, there are layers of meaning.  The Creator God is a male, Brahma.  He gazes inwardly and finds in there Creation.  When he opens his eyes, a universe appears and when he closes his eyes it dissolves....and when he opens them.....on and on.

But Creation herself is feminine, known to us Maya.  This comes from the root maa, which means, "to measure" or, for our purposes, "that which can be measured."  In other words, limited phenomenal stuff as compared to limitless light.

In addition, there is Brahman, neither male nor female, which is unmanifest: Maya at rest, if you will.  So, Brahman/Maya are have the same conceptual relationship as Intelligent Infinity and Intelligent Energy.  One is the infinite potential, the other is the ever unfolding creative manifestation.  One is eternal, but totally boring, while the other "has a life," as we say these days.

 

[meadow-foreigner]

Introducing idiosyncratic words understood by one into the definition could illuminate the target word less than intended. I'd suggest at least a clarifier.

I guess that was the whole point of the Creation: to Create.

If people keep using the same herd-based methods and terms, what worth would human beings have if not cattle-worth?

It doesn't matter if it's against the flow. What matters is that the message conveyed is clear. And Creatrix signals a clear message to me.

Also, to try and suppose Other-Selves intention is a terrible move, especially for spiritualized individuals.

"Less than intended" by whom?

[Sacred Fool]

 
Thanks for backing me up on this, meadow-foreigner.  I suspect that in Sf's world, these details are rather important, and that he was favouring me with the kind of scrutiny he would apply to himself when editing material to be published.  Your comment offers him catalyst which he could use to shift himself towards a bit more humility, given this particular context, should he wish to choose that path.
   

[Ymarsakar]

Intelligent Infinity = The Most High

Consciousness = A vehicle, ray of experiencing fun, a full DIVE VR helmet for above

Logos = A branch of the fractal of Intelligent Infinity, that keeps branching off as a fractal or Fibonacci Sequence. The Organic Timeline.

Intelligent Energy = Light, the ability to comprehend and understand using the mind.

Spirit = The thing that connects avatar and matter to Source/Intelligent Infinity.

You = Does not exist, alternative it is the Youniverse

"Your comment offers him catalyst which he could use to shift himself towards a bit more humility, given this particular context, should he wish to choose that path."

That's not necessary or useful.

[Sacred Fool]

"Your comment offers him catalyst which he could use to shift himself towards a bit more humility, given this particular context, should he wish to choose that path."

That's not necessary or useful.

Hmm, well, let's call it a more gracious distortion towards understanding within this context. It's a small point. I only made, in truth, to tease the other SF ever so slightly.
  

[flofrog]

.

You = Does not exist, alternative it is the Youniverse

.

[Steppingfeet]

If you think about it, new humans are  created from woman, customarily with a small contribution from a man.  Same goes for other critters.  In the West, Nature is presented as a female, but in the best known Near Eastern scriptures, the god figure and Creator is a male deity.

In what we call Hinduism, there are layers of meaning.  The Creator God is a male, Brahma.  He gazes inwardly and finds in there Creation.  When he opens his eyes, a universe appears and when he closes his eyes it dissolves....and when he opens them.....on and on.

But Creation herself is feminine, known to us Maya.  This comes from the root maa, which means, "to measure" or, for our purposes, "that which can be measured."  In other words, limited phenomenal stuff as compared to limitless light.

In addition, there is Brahman, neither male nor female, which is unmanifest: Maya at rest, if you will.  So, Brahman/Maya are have the same conceptual relationship as Intelligent Infinity and Intelligent Energy.  One is the infinite potential, the other is the ever unfolding creative manifestation.  One is eternal, but totally boring, while the other "has a life," as we say these days.

"He gazes inwardly and finds in there Creation.  When he opens his eyes, a universe appears and when he closes his eyes it dissolves....and when he opens them.....on and on."

I love that so much. Whatever the gender or non-gender of the Actor or Principle or Prime Mover, the description of the universe coming into being and dissolving with the opening and closing of the eye. Damn that's good. I think there is something more than mere metaphor to this, particularly as primordial awareness itself, essentially, is described in Ra's testimony as the first thing in creation.

I recall coming across similar notions in Yogananda's work.

Thanks for the rest. Indeed we are all created from woman. Blessed is She.

Introducing idiosyncratic words understood by one into the definition could illuminate the target word less than intended. I'd suggest at least a clarifier.

I guess that was the whole point of the Creation: to Create.

If people keep using the same herd-based methods and terms, what worth would human beings have if not cattle-worth?

It doesn't matter if it's against the flow. What matters is that the message conveyed is clear. And Creatrix signals a clear message to me.

Also, to try and suppose Other-Selves intention is a terrible move, especially for spiritualized individuals.

"Less than intended" by whom? 

Wait, huh? I was supportive of Sacred Fool's term. I said it was a colorful change. I said I liked it. I quite simply, and with a friendly smile, and in a conscious intention to be supportive, suggested a clarifier.

That is:

"Hey, by 'creatrix' in this definition, this is what I mean."

If you want people to understand you, they need to be able to understand you. It's okay to use words or references or personal biographical experiences known only to you, but give the reader a leg-up by offering some clarity. I mean, one's goal in communication, particularly if attempting to *define* something, is for the other-self to understand what one is saying, yes?

I conveyed that without a clarifier, SF's "definition" might be less understood than he hoped.

Thanks for backing me up on this, meadow-foreigner.  I suspect that in Sf's world, these details are rather important, and that he was favouring me with the kind of scrutiny he would apply to himself when editing material to be published.  Your comment offers him catalyst which he could use to shift himself towards a bit more humility, given this particular context, should he wish to choose that path.

Not precisely. That is far from the type of scrutiny I would apply to myself when editing my material, or anyone's within L/L, or on any project that would seek to define these terms. I am a ruthless editor and did not apply that critical eye to your work.

Though a case could be made for application of said critique as you posted this to a public forum, I didn't think you were seeking such, nor that you would appreciate that sort of feedback, so I exercised sensitivity. I just made a friendly, positive suggestion in support of your word choice. Is there somehow I could have communicated better so that the support was clearer?

Also, just for general clarity, did you not share your post for constructive feedback/engagement/dialogue? Or was it just a one-way "This is what I did and no comments please"? I mean, the latter is a valid option. If you could just please build that into your OP, I personally would be happy to honor your needs.

And if a suggestion for clarifying an idiosyncratic term is perceived as overly critical and an opportunity for humility, then I'm interested in your self-assessment: what of your own character reviews of other-selves and their work? Be honest.


PS: Ymarsakar, well, it's high in fiber.

[Sacred Fool]

Also, just for general clarity, did you not share your post for constructive feedback/engagement/dialogue? Or was it just a one-way "This is what I did and no comments please"? I mean, the latter is a valid option. If you could just please build that into your OP, I personally would be happy to honor your needs.

And if a suggestion for clarifying an idiosyncratic term is perceived as overly critical and an opportunity for humility, then I'm interested in your self-assessment: what of your own character reviews of other-selves and their work? Be honest.

Sorry, other-SelF, I wasn't trying to be as serious as that.  I think I'm pretty good at taking criticism, and there's a 17 page thread on this site to prove it (in my view), if you wanna revisit all that.  Please, please, feel free to say what you like, and I'll try to do a better job of indicating my level of silliness--which can vary significantly.

Welcome to the rock tumbler, eh?  We feel so much better as those rough edges come off, don't we?  ...after we wash up and rinse off the grit.
    

[Steppingfeet]

Sorry, other-SelF, I wasn't trying to be as serious as that.  I think I'm pretty good at taking criticism, and there's a 17 page thread on this site to prove it (in my view), if you wanna revisit all that.  Please, please, feel free to say what you like, and I'll try to do a better job of indicating my level of silliness--which can vary significantly.

Welcome to the rock tumbler, eh?  We feel so much better as those rough edges come off, don't we?  ...after we wash up and rinse off the grit.

You got it amigo.

In which case I have a list of 375 things wrong with the OP.

;-) Kidding.

And a wallop in that thread indeed.