06-20-2020, 08:00 PM
It's a good video. There's also the summary which can be found in the latest book, A Concept Guide.
Ironically, the video leads to pointing out what has been pointed out to you before: your Sahaja or Navaratna levels are not the same as the density levels. The numerical lists are only superficially similar, their items related to very different concepts at a more abstract level.
The color rays are used as a main framework by Ra. The 7 colors can also be mapped to 7 musical notes, as an alternative mode of presentation. It seems the main thing you have been doing, in a number of threads, is to map the 7 rays to planets, and then throw in additional concepts and calculations. When looking at how you use the resulting items, particularly most of the time when you translate things back from your own framework to that of densities, the meaning of what you write directly contradicts the definitions part of the scale of densities.
It's been frustrating to read some of your posts, because you ignore all feedback and keep copying your points over and over again. But I don't think it's because you understand what others are saying and then troll them. It looks more like, while you are great at taking in data and writing it back out again, you don't have the reading comprehension needed to deal with abstract concepts and really get their structures so as to be able to work with them logically.
For the general sake of the discussion, and in relation to the above post, here's an attempt to straighten the things mentioned out a little:
1. The video gives a quick look at some abstract ideas tied to the scale of densities.
2. The ideas of 7 colors and octaves are used as symbols by Ra, in connection with two distinct things: chakras, and densities.
3. A more complex structure is part of how the chakras and densities are related; each chakra is a distinctly different concept from the density of the same number.
4. Astrological systems attach different concepts to their lists of items, as in planets; again, each is different in meaning from each in <chakras>, <densities>, <...>.
5. If you're simply playing around with syntax, then you can however do whatever you want with the symbols, without generating contradictory content.
And so, for example...
A. Saying that the fourth density is the same thing as the color green is confusing. Green is only a symbol. The actual meaning is defined in relation to 4D.
B. Saying that the fourth density is the same thing as the note FA (after DO, RE, MI) is confusing. FA is only a symbol. The actual meaning is defined in relation to 4D.
C. Saying that the fourth density is the same thing as the planet Venus (in system where it is #4) is confusing. Venus is only a symbol. The actual meaning is defined in relation to 4D.
In all three cases, the point is that the meaning of 4D is not the same thing as any syntactic symbol, be it a color, a musical note, a planet, etc.
I don't know if it would help you to study formal logic, basic set theory and mappings, etc., a bit, since you're the kind of guy who plays around well with numbers and simple calculations, and it is roughly as simple or complex as what you already do, when learned. Then you'd learn things like the difference in meaning between A implying B and B implying A, and why you cannot replace one with the other. For example, Ra's system gives item 4 in densities green and item 4 in chakras green, but given simply green, what does that mean? Since green can refer to several items which are unequal to one another, you need to be careful.
Ironically, the video leads to pointing out what has been pointed out to you before: your Sahaja or Navaratna levels are not the same as the density levels. The numerical lists are only superficially similar, their items related to very different concepts at a more abstract level.
The color rays are used as a main framework by Ra. The 7 colors can also be mapped to 7 musical notes, as an alternative mode of presentation. It seems the main thing you have been doing, in a number of threads, is to map the 7 rays to planets, and then throw in additional concepts and calculations. When looking at how you use the resulting items, particularly most of the time when you translate things back from your own framework to that of densities, the meaning of what you write directly contradicts the definitions part of the scale of densities.
(05-12-2020, 12:14 PM)Asolsutsesvyl Wrote: 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.
It's been frustrating to read some of your posts, because you ignore all feedback and keep copying your points over and over again. But I don't think it's because you understand what others are saying and then troll them. It looks more like, while you are great at taking in data and writing it back out again, you don't have the reading comprehension needed to deal with abstract concepts and really get their structures so as to be able to work with them logically.
For the general sake of the discussion, and in relation to the above post, here's an attempt to straighten the things mentioned out a little:
1. The video gives a quick look at some abstract ideas tied to the scale of densities.
2. The ideas of 7 colors and octaves are used as symbols by Ra, in connection with two distinct things: chakras, and densities.
3. A more complex structure is part of how the chakras and densities are related; each chakra is a distinctly different concept from the density of the same number.
4. Astrological systems attach different concepts to their lists of items, as in planets; again, each is different in meaning from each in <chakras>, <densities>, <...>.
5. If you're simply playing around with syntax, then you can however do whatever you want with the symbols, without generating contradictory content.
And so, for example...
A. Saying that the fourth density is the same thing as the color green is confusing. Green is only a symbol. The actual meaning is defined in relation to 4D.
B. Saying that the fourth density is the same thing as the note FA (after DO, RE, MI) is confusing. FA is only a symbol. The actual meaning is defined in relation to 4D.
C. Saying that the fourth density is the same thing as the planet Venus (in system where it is #4) is confusing. Venus is only a symbol. The actual meaning is defined in relation to 4D.
In all three cases, the point is that the meaning of 4D is not the same thing as any syntactic symbol, be it a color, a musical note, a planet, etc.
I don't know if it would help you to study formal logic, basic set theory and mappings, etc., a bit, since you're the kind of guy who plays around well with numbers and simple calculations, and it is roughly as simple or complex as what you already do, when learned. Then you'd learn things like the difference in meaning between A implying B and B implying A, and why you cannot replace one with the other. For example, Ra's system gives item 4 in densities green and item 4 in chakras green, but given simply green, what does that mean? Since green can refer to several items which are unequal to one another, you need to be careful.