This Logos is an individualized portion of intelligent infinity

[Ali Quadir]

I asked because it seemed you're jumping to conclusions unity...

Ra states the sun is a sub logos of a sub logos..
Ra also states the solar system is a sub logos.
This means the sun could be the sub logos that governs the solar system

But it could also mean the sun logos is a sub logos to the solar system logos.

How do you know which one it is?

ra says sun is the physical manifestation of the sub logos.

Yes... But like I asked before: Which sub logos? The one of the solar system? Maybe, it could have it's own logos like the earth. So to clarify my objection. I do not object to the notion that the sun is a physical manifestation of a sub logos. I believe that to be the case. I object to your assumption that it is automatically responsible for the manifestation of the solar system. I think the sun's logos is responsible for it's manifestation. And since it is like 99% of the solar system it will be also about 99% the same as the solar system logos. But there is a difference.

Take a binary system. According to your model that solar system would be governed by two individual logoi. Yet in my model they would be two suns manifested in a single system. In my
model they would be in balance from the start. Your model either requires a hidden variable that balances the two suns or it would make binary stars extremely extremely unlikely while they are quite common.

I'm just placing the solar system logos one rank up the ladder from the sun logos, and put it at the level of the earth logos with the understanding that the earth is much smaller even if it is hierarchically the same.

mind/body/spirit complexes (us, any entity in this solar system) are also named as sublogoi of the logos.

That is correct.

we are told the progress is towards outside and hierarchic, from bigger to lower.

I realize the progress is from bigger to lower, but there is clearly a feedback. Where the sub logoi influence those logoi higher up in it's hierarchy. Meaning it's not just one way like projected shadows. The shadows are alive and influence that which they are projections from.

The following quote should clarify that it is the case in spite of your objections which were literally noted by Ra.

28.9 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.

this says that the central sun of this galaxy created all the stars. that removes any potential in-between logoi in between the sun, and the central sun of the galaxy.

No it does not remove the potential for intermediaries. Those are simply not mentioned.

in turn, this also removes your proposition that the sun, a sub logos, is a sub logos of some other sub logos, before it is a sub logos of the central sun of the galaxy.

Earlier you said:

Sun is a manifestation of a sub logos.
....
(insert any number of potential sub logoi here that goes above to the central sun in order)
....
a central galactic sun is a manifestation of a sub logos.

This statement was correct. But you're rejecting it now.

these two q/a say that the individualization from central galactic sun to the individual mind/body/spirit complex is actuality. so, our sun is indeed a sub logos, the creator of this solar system.

Or it is created as a sub logos to the solar system logos.

You have not explained why it would be the same individual logos. You simply refer to the statement that it is a sub logos of the central sun. But that doesn't mean it is the logos for the entire solar system. I am a sub logos to the central sun. But separated from it by many levels in the hierarchy. Finite I is small compared to it. And I am governed by it in totality. Just like I am governed by the solar system logos completely. However, the assumption that I am therefore governed by the sun logos I think is made too quickly.

'containing a blueprint' does not mean that you can contain the infinite.

Ra didn't say blueprint, he said "the one creator which is infinity". You are literally contradicting Ra here.

It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity

they say 'as in a holographic picture'. a PICTURE. a picture, is not the scene it was taken from itself.

Ra says as in a picture. Ra refers to the analogy of a holographic picture here, even if it is not the scene it depicts every part of it is the whole picture. And in analogy, for the universe like a holographic picture every part contains the infinite whole. Modern science is discovering that as we speak with the experiment described in this thread. This is very real and soon it will be accepted scientific knowledge. This isn't just a glitch, an article suggesting gravity was an effect of this holographic nature of the universe a year ago. Space is distorted by the flow of information, not a force generated in some mysterious way by mass. This causes what we perceive as gravity.

there is nothing to understand about it, because we now know that, free will, any kind of manifestation, in fact the very 'existence' concept came into being with the invention of the concept FINITY.

meaning, before finity, none of these were in actuality. only with the application of concept of finity, FINITE entities were able to choose, move, have different states, and experience anything.

because, in infinity, there is no state but infinity state. only with finiteness, there can be subsets, and there can be actual choice of those subsets.

This would be correct in a classical universe but again you're ignoring the nature of a holographic universe it is both finite in it's parts and infinite in its whole. Every part in a holographic universe is known to contain the whole so every bit of the finite contains the infinite. And therefore the infinite contains choice and manifestation through it's finites without breaking infinity.

Two layers of existence at the same time. They do not contradict but they do interact and cause things that cannot happen in a classical universe. But do in fact happen in ours.

'a picture of' does not mean 'itself'.

You left out the most important word.. Hologram.. A fragment of a hologram is itself. We're not talking ordinary pictures here. If you haven't already, spend some time researching holograms. It will be a great advantage in the study of the universe. Since well... It is a hologram.

fragment, means fragment. doesnt matter hologram or something else.

Yes it does! I think your definition of holograms requires work.

in the case of a hologram, there is some actuality that it is a hologram of. it may be exact replica of it in pattern, but, it cannot repeat it.

It does exactly that. Since you have no inclination to study holograms I will help you out a bit...

Karl Pribram a neurologist and David Bohm a physicist came to the startling respective conclusions that the brain records information holographically meaning it does not store information in specific places but rather throughout the entire brain. And that the universe does not store information locally, an electron is not an object it is a waveform spread out throughout the entire universe. It only manifests as a particle locally, but as a wave it exists everywhere. These waves can actually manifest in multiple places. And you can see any two electrons as having a single wave form. In fact you can see all of the universe as having a single wave form. The separation exists only after manifestation and is illusory.

In traditional storage of information we can point at locations in space and say what part of the information is stored there. So in a photograph of the Eiffel tower we can literally take a pair of scissors and separate the Eiffel tower from Paris. In a holographic image if we do the same we end up with two images. Both representing the original scene but smaller. This is because specific parts of the information are not stored at specific places on the image. It is stored throughout the image. You cannot therefore separate the Eiffel tower from Paris in the same way.

The brain works the same. You cannot eliminate any memory by removing the part of the brain where it is stored. You'd have to remove the whole brain to do that. If you cut a brain in half you have two almost identical copies of the individual. This is sometimes done to patients with severe debilitating epilepsy. Since the brain is topological and not a true hologram there will be differences. But the holographic principle clearly applies.

The universe is conjectured to also be the same.

Every part of a hologram contains the whole. Any change to any part of the hologram will change everything in it. There is no finiteness other than the illusory finiteness of the information from specific perspectives.

So a fragment of a hologram really is the whole. And this is what Ra means when he stated "It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity"

The pattern you speak off in a hologram is in the whole object. So when a hologram is cut in half there is no such thing as duplication of a pattern. The two fragments of the pattern are exactly the same they are the same patterns. A pattern can be added unto one of the cut off halves if this is done before the separation it will be included in both halves after the separation. If it is done after the separation it will only be present in the treated half but throughout the whole of it.

Your whole line of reasoning falls down before it starts because you do not understand the difference between a holographic universe and a traditional mechanical universe. So you set out in the wrong direction and the clue that this is taking place is your systematic denial of the importance of the word hologram.

It makes all the difference.

We are like the oversoul or logos governing many creatures. This incidentally also completely agrees with modern neurology. There is no homunculus. But each part is formed after us. Each part IS us but a different perspective on us... Just like a hologram. Every part of the image created by a hologram is a function of perspective.

more probably you are a fragment of that oversoul that you are merging to, in 7d. which will in turn merge with other entities into higher 'oversouls'.

We are both the upward ascent from our sub logoi through us to the creator. And the downward descent from the creator through us to the sub logoi. It's all one movement. We're not the tip of creation or the bottom of it, we're everything between the mysteries on both ends.

In his message Ra clarifies that the differentiation of sub logoi creates the universe, (downward) and all in it, and that the integration will allow us to ascend our consciousness up in the densities. (upward) Ra does not focus on this but the tree of life symbol in various mythologies mean exactly this.

And thus the creation of time and the apparent acceleration as our consciousness moves towards 4th.. I had not seen this in that exact way. But it makes much sense to me.

time has 'become' with the first application of the concept of 'finite'.

therefore, time transcends all the way up to infinite intelligence. the only concept, that can be free of any kind of time constraints, therefore, is, infinite intelligence.

I don't quite see why time comes with finiteness. In fact, I believe time to ascend up just a little bit. Individuation, our persona on this earth extends up further. We are time binders, we do not exist in time we create it with our perception. But we are in our nature timeless beings.

for anything different than infinite intelligence, therefore, a concept of time has to exist. because, anything that is different than infinite intelligence, will have to be finite in any given amount, in order to 'be' what it is at that point.

Why is the finite timebound? You say these things very matter of factly but you do not support those statements. I don't see why they would be true...

Unity, I just wouldn't have these discussions with the people I meet day to day. Thanks