This Logos is an individualized portion of intelligent infinity

[unity100]

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.

i dont get why you are dwelling on this.

the 2 q/as consecutively leave no room for intermediaries :

28.8 Questioner: Let’s take as an example the planet that we are on now and tell me how much of the creation was created by the same Logos that created this planet?

Ra: I am Ra. This planetary Logos is a strong Logos creating approximately 250 billion of your star systems for Its creation. The, shall we say, laws or physical ways of this creation will remain, therefore, constant.

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.

don asks how much of this creation was created by the same logos that created this planet. ra answers, this planetary logos is a strong logos creating approx. 250 bil of star systems for its creation.

don asks, whether the lenticular star system that WE call a galaxy, the one which we are in with 250 billion other SUNS like OUR OWN was created by a single logos.

ra says, this is correct.

that means are no intermediaries. the logos that created this galaxy, has directly created 250 billion suns, like us, all of which dwell here.

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.

i dont know why you are doing this, but according to the above q/as, that has no possibility.

earlier i have proposed the possibility of there being branching logoi myself, but it seems, this is not the case, as i explained above.

there is no mandatory binaryness in this. there is nothing that needs to be balanced, in regard to a sun. a star system may or may not have two suns.

the balance that is needed, seems to be being met by whatever a sun manifests in, whatever you may call it 'dark matter field', or 'darkness of the spirit in physical realm' or whatever. all suns manifest in some dark place that encompasses universe, they expand in it.

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

it remove any potential for intermediaries :

28.8 Questioner: Let’s take as an example the planet that we are on now and tell me how much of the creation was created by the same Logos that created this planet?

don asks which logos has created this galactic system. ra tells one logos created all star systems (and hence stars) in it.

notice, that logos, creating all these, is STILL a sublogos of the logos that has created itself, AND other sublogoses that has created the other galaxies in this universe. (not even mentioning, the logos that has created the central logos in this universe).

because all of these are sublogoi, and, what is being talked about here, ARE the sublogoi leveling, and the structure, if there were any intermediate sublogoi in between galactic sublogos and the star sublogos, they would have been mentioned.

because, they are talking about SUBLOGOI structure.

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.

i said it, and im rejecting it now, since that statement was apparently not correct, after careful rereading of the relevant q/as.

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

apparently it wasnt.

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.

as it goes down, branching out increases it seems. material says a planetary body doesnt become an entity until the seeking of the mind/body/spirit complexes living on it are of one direction. (possibly ending up as the technical definition of the presence of at least an early 4d or late 3d society complex).

in regard to governance, any logoi in the care of higher sublogoi move within the amenities provided to it by the higher sublogoi. also, as Ra says, logoi always perceive themselves as giving free will to their sublogoi.

since we are all subject to the natural laws being present in this place this sublogos has created/refined, we are indeed governed by it, and anything lower than it that governs our life. this can only change by changing the solar system we are in, it seems.

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.

i dont know how else to put this. the quote is as clear as day. the containment is in the form of AS IN a holographic picture. if, it was plain out REAL containment, not an 'as in' one, they would not need to mention the 'as in a holographic picture' part.

you are willfully ignoring the part of the sentence that modifies the whole meaning. you are basically transplanting your existence, which has only been possible with the discovery of finity, to infinity 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.

'holographic nature' or 'copy of something holographic' does not make one hologram, the other hologram, OR, make one of the copies equal to the summation of ALL the copies.

EVEN if, as a pattern, or, in reality, every single individual holographic picture was containing the whole, there would STILL be an external hologram containing you, and an external hologram containing it. making any of these holograms, in no way infinity themselves, because they are contained within each other, and one can move from one of them to the other.

in addition, being infinite towards inside, and containing copies of everything that is outside, in your 'infinite' inside, does NOT place what's outside you, inside you. if an observer moved towards outside from your inner world, it would still be able to get OUTSIDE you, and observe you from outside, identifying you, just as you identify yourself.

that is, of course, accepting, extending and overshooting the 'holographic reality' concept, which is new, raw and yet untested.

let me put it this way :

your existence, my existence, all these that's happening here, has only been possible with the discovery of finity.

without finity, there was only infinity. in an undifferentiated state. and in this state, there is no question to infinity being infinity, or being infinite. it doesnt require 'illusion' prefixes, 'but in fact' prefixes, or 'i chose to be so' rationalizations.

infinity, is plain out infinite without any question, condition, identifier, or rationalization.

you are however, existing. you are actually an existing entity, something which is able to identify itself with various affixes and prefixes and conditions.

ALL of these point to the finity. these are only possible by finity. they cannot even be valid otherwise.

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.

excuse me but, even if you apply the new, untested holographic reality concept and overextend it and reinterpret what is said about the infinity, and transplant yourself as infinity, what we are told about finity does not change.

we are told that, ALL these things, including free will, has been possible with the discernment of the concept finity.

there is no 'classicality' to this :

13.12 Questioner: Can you tell me how intelligent infinity became, shall we say (I’m having difficulty with the language), how intelligent infinity became individualized from itself?

Ra: I am Ra. This is an appropriate question.

The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned to be freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One. Thus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness. Due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity there is no ending to many-ness. The exploration, thus, is free to continue infinitely in an eternal present.

you are infinite intelligence INDIVIDUALIZED from itself. you are NOT infinite intelligence, itself, in its undifferentiated form as infinite intelligence.

you are individualized infinite intelligence, which has only been able to individualize with the invention of the concept finity.

for the otherwise to be true, you need to remove that finity. if you remove that finity however, you will not be what you know as yourself anymore.

as long as you are ANYthing but undifferentiated, unindividualized intelligent infinity, you are NOT intelligent infinity itself, in its unindividualized, infinite form.

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...

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.

excuse me, but you are taking some limited concept and trying to shoot it to infinity.

what we are talking about, is not something at the 'universe' level, or 'reality' level. you cannot take some mechanic that works inside these, and apply it to the scale we are talking about.

we are talking about infinity here. ALL the concepts you speak of, are CONCEPTS, WITHIN infinity. they are ALL finite. because, their existence has only been possible with the discovery of the finite.

this includes the concept 'reality'. if you are talking about any 'reality', then you are talking about finity. because, in infinity, there is nothing, but infinity. 'reality' or 'illusion' or other states, do not apply.

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.

and your whole line of reasoning falls down at the point at which you say 'there are two holograms' after cutting in half.

the fact that there are TWO holograms means that there are TWO holograms, meaning that, even if they are copies of one another, they are NOT each other. because, it is a situation with two holograms.

in infinity there cant be a 'two' situation, regardless of how identical two things are.

infinity is a state of 'one', because, there is only one infinity. at the point you attempt to say that there are 'two' infinite holograms, you are not talking about infinity anymore.

this is the place where 'Law of One' comes from, by the way. because there is only one infinity, everything that 'exists' is, concluded to be one.

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.

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...

because, time is comparison in between changes in between two situations to each other.

if a something changes its position x units compared to another thing that has changed its position y units compared to any other thing, you say that x units of time passed during the change of y's position.

movement, is at the basis of all kinds of manifestation. entities that exist, move, therefore, change happens. existing realms' compositions and situations change with the movement of their parts. this goes downwards infinitely (probably infinitely).

because, freedom of will (individualization of infinite intelligence and emergence of more than one entity) only been possible with the advent of finity, and time is comparison in between situations of finites, that means that time, will be present in any form, whenever there are finites present.

and time, then, will only end at the point there are no finites, therefore, one single infinity, and therefore no freedom of will, no existence, no manifestation, no entities.

............

in summary :

ALL things that are and all that happened, EXCEPT infinity, has been possible with infinite intelligence discerning the concept of finity, therefore allowing individualization from itself, and therefore there existing actually more than one entity.

since, time is change (in its base, movement of entities compared to each other, that includes changing), that means, as long as at a level there is more than one entity (doesnt matter whether they are holograms or not, whatever they are) that means, there is time, because those entities can be compared to each other.

actually, the mere existence of anything would imply that, there exists one entity individualized from infinite intelligence, and would imply existence of all kinds of things related with existence of more than one entity (time, change etc).

---

the point at which you will truly be infinite then, will be the point at which you cease to exist.