Random Ra Material Questions

[isis]

"In an Infinite Creator there is only unity."

"In this unity lies love."

seems like there were more but i can't find them

To become the Creator is to become all that there is.

In the Creator is all that there is.

All serve the One Creator. There is nothing else to serve, for the Creator is all that there is. It is impossible not to serve the Creator.

There is no difference, potential or kinetic, in unity.

This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things.

The term Love then may be seen as the focus, the choice of attack, the type of energy of an extremely, shall we say, high order which causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential of intelligent infinity in just such and such a way. This then may be seen to be an object rather than an activity by some of your peoples, and the principle of this extremely strong energy focus being worshiped as the Creator instead of unity or oneness from which all Loves emanate.

There is no entity without help, either through self-awareness of the unity of creation or through guardians of the self which protect the less sophisticated mind/body/spirit from any permanent separation from unity while the lessons of your density continue.

This is incorrect, as the unity of the Creator exists within the smallest portion of any material created by Love, much less in a self-aware being.

However, the priests and peoples of that era quickly distorted our message, robbing it of the, shall we say, compassion with which unity is informed by its very nature. Since it contains all, it cannot abhor any.

u didn't indicate anywhere that your daddy wrote this & i'm not that familiar with the Ra material so i read this whole post of yours to me thinking it was your words that i was reading. i almost asked, "did u channel this?" haha

[Learner]

this thread is for w/e random questions u may have

according to Ra, is unity love or does unity only contain love?

i'll think of more later

Unity is an overloaded word. Ra may have used unity and oneness interchangably, but I would separate the meanings and state:
unity leads to power, oneness leads to love.

Another way to see it is that unity and oneness are the same concept view at different levels of awareness (density?). If we understand that we are all one, then it naturally lead to love. People who have experience oneness physically, through meditation, drugs, etc. can attest to that.
At the 3rd density, unity will lead us to the next level in evolution, e.g. from a mind/body/spirit complex to mind/body/spirit social memory complex. But there are two ways to get there, through love/acceptance (i.e. STO) or fear/control (i.e. STS). Even though STS is about separation, they also need unity -- the unity that's the product of fear/control. Just think of patriotism, using the concept of separation, us-vs-them, people could be united in such a way that they feel justified to bring horrors such as nuclear war to others.

Both STS and STO would like to see unity on the 3D earth. How it is brought about makes a huge difference.

[andreazzi]

Hi,

Did Ra make a mistake here?

34.7 Questioner: Do what we call contagious diseases play any part in this process with respect to the unmanifested self?

Ra: I am Ra. These so-called contagious diseases are those entities of second density which offer an opportunity for this type of catalyst. If this catalyst is unneeded, then these second-density creatures, as you would call them, do not have an effect. In each of these generalizations you may please note that there are anomalies so that we cannot speak to every circumstance but only to the general run or way of things as you experience them.

Is it really second density creatures (rats, insects, etc) or first density creatures (virus, bacteria)? Or am I completely wrong in my densities interpretation?

[Steppingfeet]

Hi,

Did Ra make a mistake here?

34.7 Questioner: Do what we call contagious diseases play any part in this process with respect to the unmanifested self?

Ra: I am Ra. These so-called contagious diseases are those entities of second density which offer an opportunity for this type of catalyst. If this catalyst is unneeded, then these second-density creatures, as you would call them, do not have an effect. In each of these generalizations you may please note that there are anomalies so that we cannot speak to every circumstance but only to the general run or way of things as you experience them.

Is it really second density creatures (rats, insects, etc) or first density creatures (virus, bacteria)? Or am I completely wrong in my densities interpretation?

I believe Ra classifies all biological life (even in its most simplest forms) as belonging to second density. That includes virus and bacteria.

[andreazzi]

Hi again!

Is this Gary? Thanks for the answer.

Well, take a look at these two questions from session 16:

16.26 Questioner: Well, roughly how many total planets in this galaxy of stars that we’re in have aware life regardless of density?
Ra: I am Ra. Approximately six seven, oh oh oh, oh oh oh [67,000,000].

16.27 Questioner: Can you tell me what percentage of those are third, fourth, fifth, sixth density, etc.? Roughly, very roughly.
Ra: I am Ra. A percentage seventeen for first density, a percentage twenty for second density, a percentage twenty-seven for third density, a percentage sixteen for fourth density, a percentage six for fifth density. The other information must be withheld. The free will of your future is not making this available. We shall speak on one item. There is a fairly large percentage, approximately thirty-five percent of the intelligent planets, which do not fit in the percentiles. These mysteries are of sixth and seventh density and are not available for our speaking.

Ra suggests that there are planets in first density with aware life and planets in first density without aware life. What would mean "aware life" in first density then?

[Steppingfeet]

Hey friend, this is the one known as Gary. : )

In response to your question, it was Don who used the term "aware life" in his question, "Well, roughly how many total planets in this galaxy of stars that we’re in have aware life regardless of density?"

But he says "aware life regardless of density". Were I in a position of responding to Don's question, I would assume that Don asked, "how many planets have life that is experiencing any of the seven densities". (Don used a shorthand, calling all life within the seven densities "aware life".)

So, Ra responds and gives the total number of planets that have life experiencing one or more of the densities. And then Ra breaks that down into percentages.

I think it is safe to assume that, using Don's terminology, Ra considers life in any density as "aware life".

Though I don't think "aware life" is the most clarifying or helpful of terms.

Love/Light, GLB

[quote='andreazzi' pid='160253' dateline='1407164026']
Hi again!

Is this Gary? Thanks for the answer.

Well, take a look at these two questions from session 16:

16.26 Questioner: Well, roughly how many total planets in this galaxy of stars that we’re in have aware life regardless of density?

Ra: I am Ra. Approximately six seven, oh oh oh, oh oh oh [67,000,000].

16.27 Questioner: Can you tell me what percentage of those are third, fourth, fifth, sixth density, etc.? Roughly, very roughly.

Ra: I am Ra. A percentage seventeen for first density, a percentage twenty for second density, a percentage twenty-seven for third density, a percentage sixteen for fourth density, a percentage six for fifth density. The other information must be withheld. The free will of your future is not making this available. We shall speak on one item. There is a fairly large percentage, approximately thirty-five percent of the intelligent planets, which do not fit in the percentiles. These mysteries are of sixth and seventh density and are not available for our speaking.

Ra suggests that there are planets in first density with aware life and planets in first density without aware life. What would mean "aware life" in first density then?

[andreazzi]

Hi Gary, this is Daniel from Brazil!

To make my confusion a little bit clearer, I would simplify with this question: What's the difference between the first density planets within the 67 million planets with "aware life", and the other planets in the galaxy without "aware life" at all? Get it?

[Steppingfeet]

Hi Gary, this is Daniel from Brazil!

To make my confusion a little bit clearer, I would simplify with this question: What's the difference between the first density planets within the 67 million planets with "aware life", and the other planets in the galaxy without "aware life" at all? Get it?

Yeah that's a really good question. Ra identifies first density as consisting of earth, fire, wind, and water. Even on planets lacking H2O, don't they have some form of "earth" (rocky landmass) and/or wind (moving gas)?

Does "water" always mean two hydrogen atoms bonded with one oxygen atom? Or does "water" signify the liquid basis of biological life regardless of its chemical make-up?

So what is a planet that is not participating in the curriculum of seven densities?

The only thing (that I remember) Ra identifying as not moving through the densities is the Logos itself.

And I knew it was you by your username, Daniel. I didn't know if you wanted your name used so I didn't say anything.

I suppose it's okay to tell whoever may be reading this post (if you haven't already said so elsewhere on the forums) that Daniel is the Portuguese translator of the Law of One, diligently working on getting Ra's message into his native language.

Great to see you on here!

[Learner]

...
I believe Ra classifies all biological life (even in its most simplest forms) as belonging to second density. That includes virus and bacteria.

I agree with your first statement. But I'd distinguish between virus and bacteria. Even in mainstream science, whether virus is a life form is debated. From Ra's teachings, I think virus is not a life form, but a thought form, or the product of thought forms. I deducted this mainly from the following, since STDs are mainly caused by viruses, I assume that viruses are the physical manifestation of thought forms.

83.4 Questioner: Let’s take, then, since we are on the subject of sex, the relationship before and after the veil of disease, in this particular case venereal disease. Was this type of disease in existence prior to the veil?

Ra: I am Ra. There has been that which is called disease, both of this type and others, before and after this great experiment. However, since the venereal disease is in large part a function of the thought-forms of a distorted nature which are associated with sexual energy blockage the venereal disease is almost entirely the product of mind/body/spirit complexes’ interaction after the veiling.

[andreazzi]

Hi Gary, this is Daniel from Brazil!

To make my confusion a little bit clearer, I would simplify with this question: What's the difference between the first density planets within the 67 million planets with "aware life", and the other planets in the galaxy without "aware life" at all? Get it?

Yeah that's a really good question. Ra identifies first density as consisting of earth, fire, wind, and water. Even on planets lacking H2O, don't they have some form of "earth" (rocky landmass) and/or wind (moving gas)?

Does "water" always mean two hydrogen atoms bonded with one oxygen atom? Or does "water" signify the liquid basis of biological life regardless of its chemical make-up?

So what is a planet that is not participating in the curriculum of seven densities?

The only thing (that I remember) Ra identifying as not moving through the densities is the Logos itself.

And I knew it was you by your username, Daniel. I didn't know if you wanted your name used so I didn't say anything.

I suppose it's okay to tell whoever may be reading this post (if you haven't already said so elsewhere on the forums) that Daniel is the Portuguese translator of the Law of One, diligently working on getting Ra's message into his native language.

Great to see you on here!

Thank you, my friend!

I am really enjoying the forum, great source of additional information on the L/L Research workings!

Well, you made your point there. And thanks to it I begin to understand what Ra calls a first density planet, please correct me: The first density planets are the planets on which one or more of the elements (water, fire, air, earth) live, for they are indeed alive as pure consciousness. All the other planets on which there is no "aware life" are immersed in "chaos, energy undirected and random in its infinity" and may be seen only as "part of the Logos":

9.5 ↥ Questioner: The original, the first entities on this planet— what was their origin? Where were they before they were on this planet?
Ra: I am Ra. The first entities upon this planet were water, fire, air and earth.

13.16 ↥ Questioner: Could you tell me about this first density of planetary entities?
Ra: I am Ra. Each step recapitulates intelligent infinity in its discovery of awareness. In a planetary environment all begins in what you would call chaos, energy undirected and random in its infinity. Slowly, in your terms of understanding, there forms a focus of self-awareness. Thus the Logos moves. Light comes to form the darkness, according to the co-Creator’s patterns and vibratory rhythms, so constructing a certain type of experience. This begins with first density which is the density of consciousness, the mineral and water life upon the planet learning from fire and wind the awareness of being. This is the first density.

[Steppingfeet]

I agree with your first statement. But I'd distinguish between virus and bacteria. Even in mainstream science, whether virus is a life form is debated. From Ra's teachings, I think virus is not a life form, but a thought form, or the product of thought forms. I deducted this mainly from the following, since STDs are mainly caused by viruses, I assume that viruses are the physical manifestation of thought forms.

You know, now that you mention it, I recall reading something about viruses years ago. Something about how they are self-replicating pieces of genetic code, or programming, or something like that, lacking some of the other features of biological life. (?)

At any rate, that virus may be physical manifestations of thought-forms is a *fascinating* idea. Per the Ra excerpt you quoted, there could indeed be basis for this idea.

Ra said, "...the venereal disease is in large part a function of the thought-forms...". An alternative way to read Ra's statement is that the thought-form is the force which attracts the appropriate virus to it, rather than creates the corresponding virus.

I don't however know which is the case.

Well, you made your point there. And thanks to it I begin to understand what Ra calls a first density planet, please correct me: The first density planets are the planets on which one or more of the elements (water, fire, air, earth) live, for they are indeed alive as pure consciousness. All the other planets on which there is no "aware life" are immersed in "chaos, energy undirected and random in its infinity" and may be seen only as "part of the Logos":

I can only offer one interpretation. Others may have better interpretations.

You say, "one ore more of the elements" may constitute first density.

Judging by the Q&A you quoted, it would seem that first density consists of all four of the basic elements of life: water, fire, air, and earth. I am only speculating here, of course, as Ra does not address this specific question.

I think the rest of your statement is fair. Though what "pure consciousness" means is up for debate.

Analyzing the quotes below, one might reasonably say that the "Light [which] comes to form the darkness" is an organizing, investing energy. That Light enters the primordial, random, undirected darkness and gives it direction, sets it in motion, informs the darkness as to the potentials of evolution.

Though again I only make assumptions.

Good quotes, btw!

Love/Light,
GLB

9.5 ↥ Questioner: The original, the first entities on this planet— what was their origin? Where were they before they were on this planet?

Ra: I am Ra. The first entities upon this planet were water, fire, air and earth.

13.16 ↥ Questioner: Could you tell me about this first density of planetary entities?

Ra: I am Ra. Each step recapitulates intelligent infinity in its discovery of awareness. In a planetary environment all begins in what you would call chaos, energy undirected and random in its infinity. Slowly, in your terms of understanding, there forms a focus of self-awareness. Thus the Logos moves. Light comes to form the darkness, according to the co-Creator’s patterns and vibratory rhythms, so constructing a certain type of experience. This begins with first density which is the density of consciousness, the mineral and water life upon the planet learning from fire and wind the awareness of being. This is the first density.

[andreazzi]

... I am only speculating here, of course, as Ra does not address this specific question.

Yeah, so sad we dont have a 24/7 Ra channel available these days

So many assumptions we must make to grasp the material in its totality. But, step by step, we'll get there by ourselves, of this I am sure!

L/L,

Daniel

[AnthroHeart]

I thought even a rock or a crystal was conscious.

[Learner]

....
Ra suggests that there are planets in first density with aware life and planets in first density without aware life. What would mean "aware life" in first density then?

I don't see how Ra has suggested that there were planets in 1st density without aware life. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[caycegal]

In some cases it is an implant (nothing negative about it). In other cases you are hearing a chakra or energy center.

Please explain what an implant is and where I can read more about it.

Thanks.

[andreazzi]

....
Ra suggests that there are planets in first density with aware life and planets in first density without aware life. What would mean "aware life" in first density then?

I don't see how Ra has suggested that there were planets in 1st density without aware life. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Actually, that was my confusion. I was thinking first density as every planet without "aware life" and when Ra says that there are some first density planets with "aware life", in the question 16.27, my confusion emerged.

Now I do understand all the densities as having "aware life", but from that point of view, what is the difference between a first density planet and a rocky "dead" planet? What triggers the concept of first density life, or elemental awareness, since there are no biological organisms evolved in this density?

[Learner]

...
Now I do understand all the densities as having "aware life", but from that point of view, what is the difference between a first density planet and a rocky "dead" planet? What triggers the concept of first density life, or elemental awareness, since there are no biological organisms evolved in this density?

Ah, I think you are confused because you assume that there are planets that are "dead", i.e. that are not of any density.

Recall
16.26 Questioner: Well, roughly how many total planets in this galaxy of stars that we’re in have aware life regardless of density?

Ra: I am Ra. Approximately six seven, oh oh oh, oh oh oh [67,000,000].

I think Don made the same implicit assumption as you that there were planets without aware life (i.e. not of any densities). Because this assumption is not directly stated, Ra did not correct it. Read the Q&A again carefully. Ra gave the number of the planets Don asked, it is us who would assume that this number is not actually/the same as the total planets that's out there.

Ra tried to make all his statement as precise as possible using the vocabulary available, that's why it is very hard to read sometimes. Whenever the assumption was directly stated, Ra would pointed it out if it was wrong. But when the assumption is implicit, I don't think Ra can catch it (you can't blame him for he/it is not human . This is also why Ra encouraged L/L Research group to study the relevant materials to come up with well stated questions.

But if you know the place in Ra Material where Ra indicated the existence of planets that were not of any density, can you let me know? I could have missed it.

[andreazzi]

...
But if you know the place in Ra Material where Ra indicated the existence of planets that were not of any density, can you let me know? I could have missed it.

I surely can. As follows:

Ra explains that much of our galaxy material is "dead" in the sense that it will not progress through the densities:

29.32 Questioner: I guess what we’d better get to then, now that we have traced the path of creation at least down to the crystalline structure, we’d better concentrate on the evolution of thought and its seeking path to intelligent infinity. We have created, in the major galaxy of the Logos, a very large number of planets. As these planets develop, is it possible for you to give me an example of various planetary developments in what I would call a metaphysical sense having to do with the development of consciousness and its polarities throughout the galaxy? In other words I believe that some of these planets develop quite rapidly into higher density planets and some take longer times. Can you give me some idea of that development?
Ra: I am Ra. This will be the final full query of this session.

The particular Logos of your major galaxy has used a large portion of Its coalesced material to reflect the beingness of the Creator. In this way there is much of your galactic system which does not have the progression of which you speak but dwells spiritually as a portion of the Logos. Of those entities upon which consciousness dwells there is, as you surmise, a variety of time/space periods during which the higher densities of experience are attained by consciousness. Does this fulfill the requirements of your query?

Now, Ra suggests some kind of awakening happening to the Logos, firstly forming the continuum space/time and coalescing to form the planetary structure, then manifestating awareness and thus initiating the densities of consciousness.

29.11 Questioner: Thank you. Yesterday you stated that planets in first density are in a timeless state to begin with. Can you tell me how the effect we appreciate as time comes into being?
Ra: I am Ra. We have just described to you the state of beingness of each Logos. The process by which space/time comes into continuum form is a function of the careful building, shall we say, of an entire or whole plan of vibratory rates, densities, and potentials. When this plan has coalesced in the thought complexes of Love, then the physical manifestations begin to appear; this first manifestation stage being awareness or consciousness.

At the point at which this coalescence is at the livingness or beingness point, the point or fountainhead of beginning, space/time then begins to unroll its scroll of livingness.

What defines this beingness point is up for debate. :-/

[Learner]

I have a totally different understanding of the text you quoted. To me it does not indicate any planet could be "dead" (i.e. without any density). Let me explain:

29.32
The particular Logos of your major galaxy has used a large portion of Its coalesced material to reflect the beingness of the Creator.

In this sentence Ra explained that in our Logos objects made of matters (coalesced material) is where the consciousness reside (i.e. used "to reflect the beingness of the Creator".

In this way there is much of your galactic system which does not have the progression of which you speak but dwells spiritually as a portion of the Logos.

You probably know, much of the universe as we know contains mostly space, star systems and planets are only very small portion of the vast space that contains the galactic system. The space that does not contain matter, e.g. vacuum, is not nothing -- this is what current mainstream science has not understood. It is filled with energy, or aether as called by the ancient scientists. Ra was saying that this emptiness that is also part of the Logos that our spirit can reside, but it does not have consciousness reside on it for evolution.

Of those entities upon which consciousness dwells there is, as you surmise, a variety of time/space periods during which the higher densities of experience are attained by consciousness.
The entities Ra spoke here are of "coalesced material", e.g. planets. Ra was saying through time the consciousness residing on them can evolve through densities.

29.11
At the point at which this coalescence is at the livingness or beingness point, the point or fountainhead of beginning, space/time then begins to unroll its scroll of livingness.

To me the beingness point is stately very clearly, it's at the point where energy coalesced into matter, e.g. where matter appeared. From the current scientific understanding of the big bang, the entire universe (i.e. our Logos) is condensed at a single point at the very beginning of the big bang, so there's enormous amount of energy, chaotic, undirected (as Ra described 13.16), only as space expand, matters start to form. Planetary objects are not just matter, but more organized matter. Their formation signifies the beginning of consciousness.
Since Don was a physicist, I think Ra gave the answer Don would understand as I explained here.

If you are familiar with Genesis of the Bible, I consider the 7 days of creation described a distorted description of the process of designing a particular Logos (probably ours . In that reference the beginning of consciousness is the third day: G1.9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear". I consider this an analogous explanation of how the (co-)Creator decide to coalesce energy into matters. -- just a fun side note to consider.

[andreazzi]

I have a totally different understanding of the text you quoted. To me it does not indicate any planet could be "dead" (i.e. without any density). Let me explain:

29.32
The particular Logos of your major galaxy has used a large portion of Its coalesced material to reflect the beingness of the Creator.

In this sentence Ra explained that in our Logos objects made of matters (coalesced material) is where the consciousness reside (i.e. used "to reflect the beingness of the Creator".

In this way there is much of your galactic system which does not have the progression of which you speak but dwells spiritually as a portion of the Logos.

You probably know, much of the universe as we know contains mostly space, star systems and planets are only very small portion of the vast space that contains the galactic system. The space that does not contain matter, e.g. vacuum, is not nothing -- this is what current mainstream science has not understood. It is filled with energy, or aether as called by the ancient scientists. Ra was saying that this emptiness that is also part of the Logos that our spirit can reside, but it does not have consciousness reside on it for evolution.

Yes, we indeed have different understandings of the text. But you must know that the Milky Way contains at least 100 billion planets, and this is a minimum, so, the 67,000,000 planets Ra mentions as having "aware life" are not the total planets in the galaxy, and thus the other planetary spheres are not part of the densities at least at this moment.

Anyway, this is a matter of interpretation and assumption as "Ra does not address this specific question" quoting our friend, Gary.

Feel free to draw your own conclusions!

[Siren]

Actually, that was my confusion. I was thinking first density as every planet without "aware life" and when Ra says that there are some first density planets with "aware life", in the question 16.27, my confusion emerged.

Now I do understand all the densities as having "aware life", but from that point of view, what is the difference between a first density planet and a rocky "dead" planet? What triggers the concept of first density life, or elemental awareness, since there are no biological organisms evolved in this density?

The first question, really, is "what is a planet?" Whilst some people would regard the planet as its 1st density materials (rocks, mountains, oceans, valleys, clouds, sky, etc—in short, the water they drink, air they breathe and earth they stand on), others would include 2nd-density plants as being "the planet"—distinguishing higher 2nd-density animals and 3rd-density humans as being not "the planet."

It is my distortion/understanding that a planetary sphere is, first and foremost, a focus, vortex or web of geometrically-interlocking fields of spiraling electromagnetic energy (i.e. nothing physical whatsoever) which only as it phases into 1st-density activation begins to slowly coalesce, coagulate or compact into that familiar globular shape of molecular/chemical elements everyone regards as a "planet."

The difference between a planetary sphere and a sun or star seems to be that the former has the potential to offer an experience of spiritual progression through 7 succeeding densities of awareness, whilst the former does not but rather "dwells spiritually as portion of Logos/Creator."

Some pertaining quotes:

71.10 Approximately 32% of stars have planets as you know them while another 6% have some sort of clustering material which upon some densities might be inhabitable.

16.25 Approximately one-fifth of all planetary entities contain awareness of one or more densities.

71.9 These processes occur upon all planets which have given birth to sub-Logoi such as yourselves. The percentage of inhabited planets is approximately 10%.

29.32 In this way there is much of your galactic system which does not have the progression of which you speak but dwells spiritually as a portion of the Logos.

11.41 There is a sphere in the area opposite your sun of a very, very cold nature, but large enough to skew certain statistical figures. This sphere should not properly be called a planet as it is locked in first density.

It is interesting to note that Ra opted not to call a "planet" those spheres "locked" 1st density, meaning that for whatever reason they are not viable for spiritual evolution. The interesting point, however, is that they are yet in 1st density.

It might also be interesting to point out that the beingness of 1st density awareness is purely elemental or molecular/chemical, and that stars are "manufacturing" many of these very 1st-density atomic elements (from hydrogen and helium all the way to "heavier" elements like iron and oxygen), yet the sun is not a 1st-density planet.

This may suggest something regarding the notion of "dwelling spiritually."

---

Addendum:

In the above quotes, Ra indicates 1/5th (20%) of all planetary spheres of this Logos/Galaxy contain awareness of one or more densities, and yet later they say the percentage of inhabited planets is 10% (or 1/10th). So are the remaining "uninhabited" planets (i.e. not "containing" awareness) not 1st-density spheres?

Is "containing awareness" the same as being "inhabited"? What accounts for this discrepancy? Or is it all just semantics?

Food for thought.

[andreazzi]

It is interesting to note that Ra opted not to call a "planet" those spheres "locked" 1st density, meaning that for whatever reason they are not viable for spiritual evolution. The interesting point, however, is that they are yet in 1st density.

You just hit the point! What makes this sphere first density then?

Addendum:

In the above quotes, Ra indicates 1/5th (20%) of all planetary spheres of this Logos/Galaxy contain awareness of one or more densities, and yet later they say the percentage of inhabited planets is 10% (or 1/10th). So are the remaining "uninhabited" planets (i.e. not "containing" awareness) not 1st-density spheres?

Yes, you are correct pointing this out, and I really think this discrepancy is due to Ra's difficulty with numbers:

If "one-fifth of all planetary entities contain awareness of one or more densities" and there are "67,000,000 planets with aware life regardless of density" then it would be correct to assume that there are 335,000,000 planets in the galaxy, and this we know is not correct. Then there must be an error in these numbering translations.

Is "containing awareness" the same as being "inhabited"?

I would interpret "containing awareness" as refering to planets in any density (1st-7th), and "inhabited" as those planets on which inhabitants or living organisms dwell (2nd-7th density).

A real banquet for the mind.

[AnthroHeart]

I don't think we could see a 7D planet. It would probably be a black hole.

[Learner]

Yes, we indeed have different understandings of the text. But you must know that the Milky Way contains at least 100 billion planets, and this is a minimum, so, the 67,000,000 planets Ra mentions as having "aware life" are not the total planets in the galaxy, and thus the other planetary spheres are not part of the densities at least at this moment.
...

You are making the assumption that the "galaxy" Ra spoke of is the Milky Way galaxy. It seems there were some confusion of terms that Don noticed later in session 16 after Ra's answer of 67m in 16.26. From 16.33-36.
16.35
"...
The galaxy term must be split. We call galaxy that vibrational complex that is local. Thus, your sun is what we would call the center of a galaxy. We see you have another meaning for this term."

So it seems the galaxy Ra was referring to in 16.26 is actually the solar system. Then you may say but solar system has only 9 planets..., well, maybe Ra consider each rock in the asteroid belt circling the sun a planetary body.

What I'm not sure is after Don explained what the term galaxy meant to him, whether Ra started to use Don's definition when using the term galaxy again.

This also would explain discrepancy of 25% and 10% Siren noticed. 25% was said before the correction, thus referring to the solar system; 10% was with regard to the Milky Way galaxy, as Don specified in his question.

[Learner]

Yes, we indeed have different understandings of the text. But you must know that the Milky Way contains at least 100 billion planets, and this is a minimum, so, the 67,000,000 planets Ra mentions as having "aware life" are not the total planets in the galaxy, and thus the other planetary spheres are not part of the densities at least at this moment.
...

You are making the assumption that the "galaxy" Ra spoke of is the Milky Way galaxy. It seems there were some confusion of terms that Don noticed later in session 16 after Ra's answer of 67m in 16.26. From 16.33-36.
16.35
"...
The galaxy term must be split. We call galaxy that vibrational complex that is local. Thus, your sun is what we would call the center of a galaxy. We see you have another meaning for this term."

So it seems the galaxy Ra was referring to in 16.26 is actually the solar system. Then you may say but solar system has only 9 planets..., well, maybe Ra consider each rock in the asteroid belt circling the sun a planetary body.

What I'm not sure is after Don explained what the term galaxy meant to him, whether Ra started to use Don's definition when using the term galaxy again.

This also would explain discrepancy of 25% and 10% Siren noticed. 25% was said before the correction, thus referring to the solar system; 10% was with regard to the Milky Way galaxy, as Don specified in his question.

"10.16 Questioner: Only one, other than what we can do to make the instrument more comfortable. I have only one other question. I would like to have brief information of the word you use, “galaxy.”

Ra: I am Ra. We use the term known to your people by the sound vibration complex “galaxy.” We accept that some galaxies contain one system of planetary and solar groups, others containing several. However, the importance of the locus in infinite time/space dimensionality is so little that we accept the distortion implicit in such an ambiguous term."

Ra sees "galaxy" as an ambiguous term and clearly do not see galaxy as we definite it, for we would not call something containing only one or several solar groups a galaxy. It seems when we use the term galaxy, we refer to a larger groups of stars than Ra would.

[andreazzi]

Yes, we indeed have different understandings of the text. But you must know that the Milky Way contains at least 100 billion planets, and this is a minimum, so, the 67,000,000 planets Ra mentions as having "aware life" are not the total planets in the galaxy, and thus the other planetary spheres are not part of the densities at least at this moment.
...

You are making the assumption that the "galaxy" Ra spoke of is the Milky Way galaxy. It seems there were some confusion of terms that Don noticed later in session 16 after Ra's answer of 67m in 16.26. From 16.33-36.
16.35
"...
The galaxy term must be split. We call galaxy that vibrational complex that is local. Thus, your sun is what we would call the center of a galaxy. We see you have another meaning for this term."

So it seems the galaxy Ra was referring to in 16.26 is actually the solar system. Then you may say but solar system has only 9 planets..., well, maybe Ra consider each rock in the asteroid belt circling the sun a planetary body.

What I'm not sure is after Don explained what the term galaxy meant to him, whether Ra started to use Don's definition when using the term galaxy again.

This also would explain discrepancy of 25% and 10% Siren noticed. 25% was said before the correction, thus referring to the solar system; 10% was with regard to the Milky Way galaxy, as Don specified in his question.

Yes, you are right. The term galaxy only was normalized in question 16.36 but Don uses the term "galaxy of stars" in question 16.26 so it is quite difficult to imagine Ra refering to the solar system in that question.

Again we must hold on to assumptions!

Ra sees "galaxy" as an ambiguous term and clearly do not see galaxy as we definite it, for we would not call something containing only one or several solar groups a galaxy. It seems when we use the term galaxy, we refer to a larger groups of stars than Ra would.

This may be the key point, for Ra may use the term galaxy also refering to a group of star systems. Anyway, we must always bear in mind that these concepts are very delicate given Ra's difficulties with numbering and specifically the concept of galaxy.

[Learner]

It is interesting to note that Ra opted not to call a "planet" those spheres "locked" 1st density, meaning that for whatever reason they are not viable for spiritual evolution. The interesting point, however, is that they are yet in 1st density.

It seems quite clear to me, Ra defines spheres that can evolve through 7 densities "planets", those are not, e.g. locked in a particular density, are not called planets.

[andreazzi]

Hey guys, what does this mean:

40.7 Questioner: How long was the time of transition on this planet between second and third density? Generation and a half I believe. Is that correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct, the time measured in your years being approximately one thousand three hundred and fifty [1,350].

One generation and a half equals 1,350 years? How come?

[Bring4th_Austin]

Hey guys, what does this mean:

40.7 Questioner: How long was the time of transition on this planet between second and third density? Generation and a half I believe. Is that correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct, the time measured in your years being approximately one thousand three hundred and fifty [1,350].

One generation and a half equals 1,350 years? How come?

If I'm correct about your confusion, you are thinking that 1,350 years seems very long for 1.5 generations.

If that's the case, this might help:

20.12
Questioner: Thank you. As soon as the third density started 75,000 years ago and we have incarnate third-density entities, what was the average human life span at that time?

Ra: I am Ra. At the beginning of this particular portion of your space/time continuum the average lifetime was approximately nine hundred of your years.

900*1.5=1,350

The term "generation" can mean different things based on context, it seems Don/Ra is counting 1 lifetime as 1 generation.

[andreazzi]

Oh, yeah I forgot about that!

Thanks for your reminder, Austin!