inhabited planets

[dreamliner]

There is some confusion about the percentages given in Law of One as regard to the inhabited planets.

While session 71 talks about 10%;

71.9 Questioner: Are the processes that we are talking about processes that occur on many planets in our Milky Way Galaxy, or do they occur on all planets, or what percentage?

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

session 16 mentions "one fifth", which is 20%.

16.25 Questioner: How many inhabited planets are there in our galaxy?

Ra: I am Ra. We are assuming that you intend all dimensions of consciousness or densities of awareness in this question. Approximately one-fifth of all planetary entities contain awareness of one or more densities. Some planetary spheres are hospitable only for certain densities. Your planetary sphere, for instance, is at this time hospitable to levels or densities one, two, three, and four.

[Minyatur]

Doesn't the first one talk about 3D+ entities while the second considers all dimensions of counciousness?

But how can a planet exist and not be of 1D? 80% of planets are in the void?

[Bluebell]

urrrrk.

i too think the first question is 3D only. but 10% is lower than i expected... w varying d it's still quite low... not that i'm complaining. too many is not merry!

wuts this void ur referring to?

[Matt1]

Even 10% of our local Galaxy is massive. Nasa says that there is 100,000,000,000 or 100 Billion Stars in our Galaxy. Then if you assume that other Galaxies have the same type of pertages, Nasa says we have 100 thousand million Galaxies. Its insane!

Now think that most of us will never fully explore even our own planet , its really awesome to think that there is so much out there. Hopefully we will be able to develop the technology to travel within our lifetimes.

[dreamliner]

Percentage of 3rd density inhabitation is given as 27% in session 16.

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.

If 10% was referring to 3rd density only, and if "one-fifth (20%)" was referring to the planets inhabited by any density, then 27% of 20% makes 5.4%.

[dreamliner]

But, 2D+3D makes nearly 10%:

20% + 27% = 47%

47% of "one-fifth" (or 20%) = 9.4%

which might be pronounced as "approximately 10%", as in session 71.9

[Bluebell]

ow math! i lost u at hello...

[dreamliner]

Yet, another math reveals another discrepancy:

17% + 20% + 27% + 16% + 6% = 86%

100% - 86% = 14%

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.

Where is that "approximately thirty-five percent of the intelligent planets, which do not fit in the percentiles" in this math.

[dreamliner]

Session 71.9 can also be interpreted in a way that; Ra had meant whole universe while giving 10%, not only milky way.

However, can Ra know of such a percentage about the 3D inhabited planets in whole universe?

[Parsons]

This is all in hindsight and I think Don did a terrific job of questioning in general. However, there would have been less confusion if he would have asked something like:

Of this galaxy that we refer to as the Milky Way, how many stars are there? How many of those stars have planets? How many of those planets have 2nd density life? 3rd? etc

[indiGo33]

Taken from Tloo study guide V.2

17 % of the planets have only 1st density entities;
20 %, have 1st and 2nd density entities;
27 % have 1st, 2nd and 3rd density entities;
in 16 % 4th density is the highest density;
in 6 % 5th density is the highest density.


Therefore in our galaxy alone, there are about 18 million planets (27% of 67 million) withinhabitants at the same level of consciousness as people on Earth. Notice that the above percentages only add up to 86 % (instead of 100%).When asked about this, Ra said he could not comment on the remaining 14% without violating our free will.

[Bluebell]

Session 71.9 can also be interpreted in a way that; Ra had meant whole universe while giving 10%, not only milky way.

However, can Ra know of such a percentage about the 3D inhabited planets in whole universe?

where is it said Ra meant universe? to me it seemed Don asked about Milkyway. 

[dreamliner]

The interpretation of those percentages by "The Law of One study guide v2" might be the distorted version of the reality. It also omits that "mysterious 35%" mentioned in session 16.27 above. Confusion is better than distortion, in my opinion.

That guide both interprets those percentages as "intersections" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersecti..._theory%29 ), and sums them alltogether & ends up with 86% (as in above). However, in my calculation, I assumed those percentages as "normalized" or lean figures, not intersections. In order to be able to sum all those percentages together, those percentages must be "normalized" or lean. That is, in 3rd density percentage there should not be any other density included.

On the other hand, how can "3rd density, 2nd density and 1st density percentages" be isolated from each other, as these densities exist/work together. 3D is dependant on 2D and 1D. We don't know exaclty whether 4D is dependant on 2D and 1D, but we know for sure that 4D is not dependant on 3D, that is 4D can both coexist with 3D and exist without 3D (earth will be a 1D+2D+4D planet for some time). Higher densities also aren't quite certain with regard to their dependancies/flexibilites. Can a planet be 1D+2D+3D+5D, or 1D+2D+4D+5D, or 1D+5D+6D. The Law of One series only contain Venus and Earth as examples.

Therefore, at least we can conclude that, it would be erroneous to sum 1D, 2D and 3D percentages together. Because 3D percentage, %27, contains 1D and 2D percentages as well. As a result, assuming that the 4D and 5D percentages do not contain any other density;

27% + 16% + 6% = 49%

which leaves quite a room for that mysterious 35%.

In this calculation, 4D and 5D percentages might also need to be corrected by subtracting other densities' intersections (which seems as can't be done with the existing data at hand). For example, I didn't check but I guess Venus was a 4D/5D planet in the past and now is a 5D/6D planet (although there are no 6D inhabitants), and earth will be a 1D+2D+4D planet for some time in future (which means there might be many other similar planets out there affecting the percentages spoken).

[AnthroHeart]

Venus probably looks like a paradise to those in 5D. I had a dream I was on Venus once, but it looked ordinary. I was talking to someone else there.

[Bluebell]

Confusion is better than distortion, in my opinion.

LOL

ok, u once again lose me w math. but i don't think any density is dependant on another... though it's probably because i'm rebelling against that line of thought.

[anagogy]

Session 71.9 can also be interpreted in a way that; Ra had meant whole universe while giving 10%, not only milky way.

However, can Ra know of such a percentage about the 3D inhabited planets in whole universe?

That is how I always interpreted the passage.

Questioner: Are the processes that we are talking about processes that occur on many planets in our Milky Way Galaxy, or do they occur on all planets, or what percentage?

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

And as to the second conundrum:

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.

As Ra said, the 35% do *not* fit into the percentiles given for densities in the Milky Way Galaxy, thus, they were not included in the percentiles.

Doesn't the first one talk about 3D+ entities while the second considers all dimensions of counciousness?

But how can a planet exist and not be of 1D? 80% of planets are in the void?

Many planets do not exist at a particular density level, but exist as portions of the Logos.

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?

[dreamliner]

As Ra said, the 35% do *not* fit into the percentiles given for densities in the Milky Way Galaxy, thus, they were not included in the percentiles.

I couldn't follow how that mysterious 35% do not fit into the percentiles.

My guess was/is, that 35% represents the "creatures" such as spirit/mind complexes (mentioned in session 17.38) and/or angelic entities which Ra might have implied in 17.37.

17.37 Questioner: Well, who inhabit the astral and who inhabit the devachanic planes?

Ra: I am Ra. Entities inhabit the various planes due to their vibrational nature. The astral plane varies from thought-forms in the lower extremities to enlightened beings who become dedicated to teach/learning in the higher astral planes.

In the devachanic planes, as you call them, are those whose vibrations are even more close to the primal distortions of love/light.

Beyond these planes there are others.

17.38 Questioner: Well, does each… does… this is difficult. Our physical plane: Are there seven sub-planes to what we call our physical plane here?

Ra: I am Ra. You are correct. This is difficult to understand. There are an infinite number of planes. In your particular space/time continuum distortion there are seven sub-planes of mind/body/spirit complexes. You will discover the vibrational nature of these seven planes as you pass through your experiential distortions, meeting other-selves of the various levels which correspond to the energy influx centers of the physical vehicle.

The invisible, or inner, third-density planes are inhabited by those who are not of body complex natures such as yours; that is, they do not collect about their spirit/mind complexes a chemical body. Nevertheless these entities are divided in what you may call an artificial dream within a dream into various levels. In the upper levels, desire to communicate knowledge back down to the outer planes of existence becomes less, due to the intensive learn/teaching which occurs upon these levels.

[dreamliner]

Nevertheless, I am not quite sure whether my line of thought above is correct.

1- If it is correct; then the normalized/isolated/lean figures of 1D, 2D and 3D must be:
1D = 17%
2D = 3%
3D = 7%

2- If it is not correct;
a) either 35% is also an intersection and can not be classified into either densities; because the creatures/entities inhabiting (together with other densities) 35% of 67 million planets, are angelic beings or spirit/mind complexes (which might not be following ordinary 1D to 7D evolution path/spectrum).
b) or there is some different/mysterious math pertaining to that "mysterious 35%".

[anagogy]

As Ra said, the 35% do *not* fit into the percentiles given for densities in the Milky Way Galaxy, thus, they were not included in the percentiles.

I couldn't follow how that mysterious 35% do not fit into the percentiles.

My guess was/is, that 35% represents the "creatures" such as spirit/mind complexes (mentioned in session 17.38) and/or angelic entities which Ra might have implied in 17.37.

I think its just that portion that is dwelling spiritually as a portion of the Logos.  These are probably different kinds of astrological influences -- the holographic Logos reflecting itself in the very stars and certain planets in significant archetypical patterns and such.  
So we subtract that 35% from the total amount of intelligent planets, because it doesn't dwell at any particular density level, and cannot be classified as such, and Ra took their percentages from the remaining set of intelligent planets which could be reliably pigeon holed into their appropriate density labels.

[native]

In 16.34 and 16.35 Ra states that the word galaxy was in reference to our own solar system. Session 71 is referring to the entire Milky Way.

[anagogy]

In 16.34 and 16.35 Ra states that the word galaxy was in reference to our own solar system. Session 71 is referring to the entire Milky Way.

Well, that may be true in general, but in 71.9 it reads:

71.9 Questioner: Are the processes that we are talking about processes that occur on many planets in our Milky Way Galaxy, or do they occur on all planets, or what percentage?

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

It appears that they are talking about all planets in this particular exchange.  So not just the Milky Way.

[dreamliner]

As Ra said, the 35% do *not* fit into the percentiles given for densities in the Milky Way Galaxy, thus, they were not included in the percentiles.

I couldn't follow how that mysterious 35% do not fit into the percentiles.

My guess was/is, that 35% represents the "creatures" such as spirit/mind complexes (mentioned in session 17.38) and/or angelic entities which Ra might have implied in 17.37.

I think its just that portion that is dwelling spiritually as a portion of the Logos.  These are probably different kinds of astrological influences -- the holographic Logos reflecting itself in the very stars and certain planets in significant archetypical patterns and such.  
So we subtract that 35% from the total amount of intelligent planets, because it doesn't dwell at any particular density level, and cannot be classified as such, and Ra took their percentages from the remaining set of intelligent planets which could be reliably pigeon holed into their appropriate density labels.

I don't think that Ra meant "the portion which dwells spiritually as a portion of the Logos" by that "mysterious 35%", because the question by Don Elkins was:

"How many inhabited planets are there in our galaxy?" in 16.25.

The inital answer by Ra was:

"We are assuming that you intend all dimensions of consciousness or densities of awareness in this question. Approximately one-fifth of all planetary entities contain awareness of one or more densities. Some planetary spheres are hospitable only for certain densities. Your planetary sphere, for instance, is at this time hospitable to levels or densities one, two, three, and four."

Since there are 67 million planets which contain awareness of one or more densities (as revealed by Ra in 16.26), there must be 67x5=335 million planets totally in milky way. "The portion which dwells spiritually as a portion of the Logos" must be the remainder four-fifth (not 35%) of all planets in milky way; that is 335-67=268million.

[dreamliner]

Since there are 250 billion stars in milky way (as mentioned by Ra), 335 million planets looks quite low compared to the total number of stars. Considering that solar system has 9/10 planets, one would expect at least 250 billion planets in milky way.

Perhaps "one-fifth" was a misspelling/mispronunciation or mishearing of "one-fiftieth". Or, the low quantity of planets is because of the young stars being the majority in milky way.

However, astronomers'/scientists' predictions are towards a figure between 100-400 billion planets, which is way too high than 335 million (or even higher than 67x50):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#...nd_planets

https://web.archive.org/web/201407232130...2/07/full/

It seems that the microlensing technique they use to survey the number of planets is quite sensitive; "it can detect a planet which is as far from its star as Saturn is from Sun, or as close as Mercury is to Sun, and it is also sensitive to detecting planets as small as Mercury".

In this case, it can also be claimed that 67 million could also have been misspelled; perhaps Ra forgot to add 3 more zeros while spelling the number of inhabited planets. If it was/is so, then the number of planets containing the awareness of one or more densities would be 67 billion and the total number of planets in milky way would be 335 billion.

[βαθμιαίος]

I think Don was confused by the 35%, too.  That sentence wasn't included in the originally published version of Book I: http://www.lawofone.info/show-diff.php?s=16&dv=o-e#27

[Bluebell]

u can't omit sentences because tthey don't make immediate sense.

[dreamliner]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_...e_universe

6.24 Questioner: Do any of the UFOs that are presently reported come from other planets here at this time, or do you have this knowledge?

Ra: I am one of the members of the Confederation of Planets in the Service of the Infinite Creator. There are approximately fifty-three civilizations, comprising approximately five hundred planetary consciousness complexes in this Confederation. This Confederation contains those from your own planet who have attained dimensions beyond your third. It contains planetary entities within your solar system, and it contains planetary entities from other galaxies. It is a true Confederation in that its members are not alike, but allied in service according to the Law of One.

16.33 Questioner: With such a large number of planets in this galaxy, I was wondering if— you say there are approximately five hundred Confederation planets. That seems to me to be a relatively small percentage of the total number of fourth- and fifth-density planets around. Is there any reason for this relatively small percentage in this Confederation?

Ra: I am Ra. There are many Confederations. This Confederation works with the planetary spheres of seven of your galaxies, if you will, and is responsible for the callings of the densities of these galaxies.

16.34 Questioner: Would you define the word galaxy as you just used it?

Ra: We use that term in this sense as you would use star systems.

Gould belt ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gould_Belt ) may be the neighborhood where the confederation (which Ra are members of) is located.

[dreamliner]

However, Gould belt (3000 light years across) seems a bit too large for 7 star systems.

The exact location must be local interstellar cloud ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Interstellar_Cloud ) plus some other neighboring stars.

http://interstellar.jpl.nasa.gov/interst...rhood.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010318.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ne...own_dwarfs

[Bluebell]

lol i want to make a witty stargate reference.

wut is a star system?

[dreamliner]

lol i want to make a witty stargate reference.

wut is a star system?

george lucas must have thought as I did; put "star" in place of "solar" in "solar system", then you have "star system".

However, it seems that astronomy has been using the "star system" concept for 2 or more gravitationally coupled stars ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_system ).

The most suitable phrase to use for referring to planetary systems -other than solar system- seems as "extrasolar planetary system" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_...ry_systems ).

[Bluebell]

so we're a solar system but Sirius for example would be a star system... or a small galaxy according to Ra.