Food For Thought: Cassiopaean Hermeneutics

Spiritual Health Learning Community Center Exploring Life's Horizons

Cassiopaean Hermeneutics - Belief

(From Cassiopaeans) Remember, most all power necessary for altering reality and physicality is contained within the belief center of the mind. This is something you will understand more closely when you reach 4th density reality where physicality is no longer a prison, but is instead, your home, for you to alter as you please. In your current state, you have the misinterpretation of believing that reality is finite and therein lies your difficulty with finite physical existence. We are surprised that you are still not able to completely grasp this concept. [Cassiopaeans, 08-12-95]

[Comment - Why should the Cassiopaeans be surprised that the concept in question is not being grasped when they have been telling Laura and company all along that Laura will not properly understand such things until Laura et. al. arrive in 4th density? Moroever, one does not have to believe that Reality is finite in order to be stuck within the limits of a paradigm that construes reality in a way that veils the truth?

In other words, it is not necessarily the property of finiteness or infiniteness, per se, which is causing the log jam in understanding. We veil ourselves in a vareity of ways as a result of the assumptions, opinions, biases, prejudices, attitudes, beliefs, and interpretations we construct in relation to our experience of reality.

What is belief? How does it arise? What is the belief center of the mind? What is mind? How does belief have the power to alter reality and physicality?

Is belief a form of thought, and, if so, what kind of a thought, and what other kind of non-belief thoughts are there, or is belief, like thought, all there is? To speak of a ‘belief center of the mind’ implies that there are other centers of the mind. What would these other centers be?]

(From Cassiopaeans) Q: (L) Who created the Lizzies?
A: Ormethion.

[Comment - who gave this name and why?]

(From Cassiopaeans) Q: (L) And who is this individual?
A: Thought center.
Q: (L) Located where?
A: Everywhere.
Q: (L) Can you give us a little more of a clue?
A: Another sector of reality.

[Comment - the term ‘another sector of reality’ implies there are sectors of reality which are not reducible to thought, and, yet, earlier, they had said that thought is all there is. How is the apparent inconsistency to be reconciled? Moroever, if the thought center is located everywhere, then, just what is meant by "another sector of reality" - seemingly, the meaning of "everywhere" would include all sectors of reality.]

(From Cassiopaeans) Q: (L) Is this a sentient, self-aware being that created the Lizzies?
A: Yes and no.
Q: (L) And who created this Ormethion?
A: Not being; thought center.

[Comment - What does it mean to say that these 'creators' of the Lizzies are both sentient as well as self-aware, and, yet, not sentient and self-aware? How does a 'thought center' create something like the 'Lizzies' - that is, something which is capable of, apparently, taking on a life of its own and affecting other beings, such as humans? Furthermore, irrespective of whether one is talking about a being or a thought center, what about an answer to the question of "who created the Ormethion"?]

(From Cassiopaeans) Q: (L) Where does gravity emanate from?
A: Thought center.

[Comment - Earlier, the Cassiopaeans had said that thought is all there is, and, then, later, they said that gravity is all there is? Now, they are saying that gravity emanates from thought center. Does this mean that gravity is a form of thought and that all thought has a gravitational component within it, and, if so, what is (are) the actual nature(s) of gravity and thought that they would be so intimately related and, yet, different terms are used to refer to them?]

(From Cassiopaeans) Q: (L) You have mentioned thought centers of many occasions. Is there more than one?
A: All are one and all.
Q: (L) If you have a thought center, how do thought centers related to 7th density, the One?
A: Exactly!
Q: (L) Are thought centers 7th density?
A: All is.
Q: (L) All is thought centers?
A: No. All is 7th density. We have told you before that gravity is the foundational force of absolutely everything!!! This means at all density levels, all dimensions... It is the "stuff" of all existence. Without it, nothing would exist. Your thoughts are based in gravity, too!!

[Comment - If gravity is the foundational force of everything, including thoughts, then, what does it mean to say that gravity arises out of thought centers (see earlier Cassiopaean communication? Why not say that thought centers arise out of gravity? What exactly do the Cassiopaeans mean when they use the term "gravity"? Is the gravity of the physical world a species of "gravity" in some more fundamental, non-physical sense? How is gravity basic to everything such that nothing would exist if gravity were not present? If gravity is the foundational force of everything, then what does it mean to say that "all is 7th density" - especially, given that a number of other categorical statements have been made concerning illusion, thought, gravity, and learning? Is 7th density a gravitational effect, of some kind, or is 7th density a mode of gravitational manifestation? If the latter possibility is the case, then, what alters the way the gravitational force manifests itself across different density levels to give expression to density levels with different properties? ]

(From Cassiopaeans?) First of all, confusion abounds here due to incorrect interpretations of the last subject discussed. Dimensions are not densities!!!! Dimensions are strictly the result of the universal consciousness as manifested in the imagination sector of thought. Density means level of development as measured in terms of closeness to union with the one...

[Comment - Although the foregoing is unattributed, I am assuming that the statement comes from the Cassiopaeans. In any event, if, on the one hand, ‘dimensions are not densitites’, yet, densities are described as different levels of consciousness, while, on the other hand, dimensions are described as ‘strictly the result of the universal consciousness as manifested in the imagination sector of thought’, there would seem to be a certain amount of quibbling going on. After all, ultimately, everything is 7th density, and 7th density is, supposedly, a form of all-inclusive awareness that is said to be synonymous, in some sense, with gravitation as well as thought and illusion and out of which everything - including, presumably, dimensions, arise.

Would it be correct to say that dimensions are a species of thought with a certain kind of gravitational structure? What does it mean to say that dimiensions are "strictly the result of the universal consciousness as manifested in the imagination sector of thought"? What is 'imagination' and what makes it possible? How does universal consciousness generate dimensions through the imagination sector of thought, and why?

Would it be correct to say that densities constitute various kinds of hermeneutical understanding based on engaging different dimensions through the agency of experience. If so, then, does 7th density give expression to the Truth with which one must merge horizons in order to understand, and/or experience everything as Unity, while all other levels of density are illusory in one way or another?]

(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: (A) Which part of a human extends into 4th density?
A: That which is effected by pituitary gland.
...
Q: (L) And what is that?
A: Psychic.
...
Q: (A) Are there some particular DNA sequences that facilitate transmission between densities?
A: Addition of strands.
Q: (L) How do you get added strands?
A: You don't get, you receive.
Q: (L) Where are they received from?
A: Interaction with upcoming wave, if vibration is aligned.
Q: (L) How do you know if this is happening?
A: Psychophysiological changes manifest.

[Comment - What the Cassiopaeans seem to be saying is something along the following lines. (1) The 4th density is largely rooted in psychic phenomena; (2) psychic phenomena are a function of the pituitary gland which needs additional strands of DNA to be upgraded or further enhanced; (3) this upgrading is a function of what will be received when the upcoming wave hits here provided that one is of the right frequency alignment; (4) one will be of the right frequency alignment if one has learned all the lessons of 3rd density and, thereby, becomes a 4th density candidate; (5) but in becoming a 4th density candidate, there is no guarantee that one will become STO (service to other) oriented rather than STS (service to self) oriented, since STS beings exist at the 4th density level.

In effect, therefore, they appear to be saying that promotion to the next level of density is a function of material phenomena since enhanced psychic abilities depends on having the right sequence of DNA strands. This raises a number of obvious questions.

For example, how do psychic phenomena arise out of material-based processes? How does the addition of certain DNA sequences enable one to have psychic powers or to enhance the psychic powers one already has? What is it within the pituitary gland which supposedly makes psychic capabilities possible? Why should one suppose that psychic processes are an epi-phenomena of material processes? Is is possible that DNA constitutes a symbol or has a symbolic meaning for the Cassiopaeans rather than a stricly biochemical/genetic significance?

Even if one, for the sake of argument, were to accept the foregoing claims of the Cassiopaeans, nothing has been said about how this extra sequence of DNA is going to be inserted or placed in a human being while interacting with the wave when the latter arrives. Moreover, what determines who will receive these strands and who will not? If having learned all one's lessons in 3rd density is the determining factor, then, who or what evaluates whether such lessons have been properly learned so that graduation to the next level of density takes place and one receives the 'requisite' complement of DNA?

If one has learned all the lessons of 3rd density, then, why is it still possible to become STS (service to self) oriented in 4th density? Just what are the lessons of 3rd density which are to be learned?

Additionally, one migh ask: what, precisely, do the Cassiopaeans mean by “psychic”? What sort of abilities, properties, or qualities would they subsume under the rubric of ‘psychic’What about the possibility that psychic powers are really more a matter of the occult than of the spiritual, because the mystics tend to talk about qualities of the heart, spirit, and so on which all are within us now and only need to be brought on line, purified, calibrated and activated in a harmonious way. None of the Prophets or the great Sufi mystics, including Ibn al-‘Arabi spoke about any need to acquire additional sequences of DNA or of acquire certain biological agents or to activate the pituitary gland.]

(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: (A) When you speak of an upcoming wave, it is a wave of what?
A: Think of it as a wave of reflection from the beginning and end point.
Q: (A) But what vibrates? Energy? Aether?

[Comment - What makes a wave a wave? Is it vibration? If so, what is vibrating in a "wave of reflection from the beginning and end point"? The beginning and end point of what? What kind of relfection is being alluded to?

Is a wave anything which is cyclical in nature? If so, does every cycle necessarily have to have a certain energy associated with it that is tied to the frequency of that cycle? Must cycles always be a function of material phenomena, and, if not, then, what does it mean to speak about non-physical wave forms?

A wave might be characterized as a contrast between the apex of a manifestation (i.e., the point of greatest intensity) and the nadir of the wave which is devoid of whatever it is that the apex is manifesting in a concentrated form. If so, then, isn't it possible that the cycle of a non-material wave form may consist in the structural character of that 'wave form' manifesting its structure or character quite apart from issues of energy and frequency - for example, the cycle of a thought or belief is the thought or belief itself ... whenever that thought or belief occurs again such an event would constitute the next cycle of that thought or belief?

Is there anything which requires that the different instances of such a thought or belief being expressed are necessarily tied together in the sense of being so many cycles of an underlying dynamic of a given medium (e.g., consciousness) as is the case with, say, sound, and water? Must the 'force' which shapes the structural character of a given wave form necessarily be a function of physical/material energy?]

(From the Cassiopaeans) A: Energy and aether are directly symbiotic. "Aether" is Terran material science's attempt to address ether. The trouble is, there is simply no way to physicalize a plane of existence which is composed entirely of consciousness. It is the union of perfect balance between the two "states" or planes, that is the foundation and essence of all creation/reality. You cannot have one without the other!

[Comment - What are the two planes or states which are in perfect balance? ... energy and ether? If everything is a function of thought, then, aren’t energy and ether, themselves, thought forms with a certain structure? If so, where and how did these planes get their structures and why (for what purpose, if any)?

What is meant by 'energy'? What is meant by 'aether'? Do they mean the same thing on every level of density? Do they have the same dynamic on every level of density? What does it mean to say that "there is simply no way to physicalize a plane of existence which is composed entirely of consciousness"? What does it mean to say that that which is composed entirely of consciouness is the foundation and essence of all creation/reality - including the realms which are said to be physical/material?

What really is meant by claiming that: "It is the union of perfect balance between the two 'states' or planes that is the foundation and essence of creation/reality"? What is the nature of such 'perfect balance'? How is such balance the foundation and essence of creation/reality? What brings such planes into and/or maintains such planes or states into perfect harmony?]

(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: (L) When you say the two states or planes, you are saying the physical state and the state of consciousness...
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And you can't have one without the other.

[Comment - Why not? Is this a metaphysical necessity, or merely an observational statement based on inductive reasoning?]

(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: (L) And the state of consciousness and the state of material existence are so completely connected, that both are infinite? One cannot exist without the other...
A: Yes, connected, intertwined, bonded... Merged.

[Comment - Saying that all of this is intertwined in the play of Divine Names is one thing, but to say that consciousness cannot exist without the state of material existence and is, therefore, somehow dependent on material existence is, I think, problematic. There is no a priori reason for one to suppose that the realm of Nasut (the material plane) needs to be infinite, but if it is infinite, then, perhaps, it is infinite in a different manner than the other realms of Being (e.g., Malakut, Jabrut, Lahut, Hahut)

(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: (A) When this aether-energy-matter vibrates, then in which dimension does it do this?
A: The densities 3 and 4 at transition junction.
Q: (A) If not in linear time, then in what?
A: Cyclical "time."

[Comment - If time is an illusion, then, what is the difference between a linear illusion and a cyclical illusion, and, more importantly, how do these differences arise? Are they ontological or hermeneutical?]

(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: (A) Is DNA acting as a superconductor?
A: Yes!!! But variably.

[Comment - What does it mean for DNA to act as a variable superconductor? What is the nature of this alleged superconducting function of DNA? What is being superconducted and how? What is the aforementioned notion of 'variability' a function of, and how does the dynamic of that variability operate?]

(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: (A) I am trying to understand the universe in terms of a triad: matter - geometry - information. Is it the right idea?
A: If one thinks of matter as "living" rather than "dead."

[Comment - What does it mean to consider matter as “ ‘living’ rather than ‘dead’ ”, and doesn’t this imply that there is a dimension of awareness or consciousness to the realm of matter?]

And now, when you merge densities, or traverse densities, what you have is the merging of physical reality and ethereal reality, which involves thought form versus physicality.

[Comment - What do the Cassiopaeans mean by “thought form versus physicality”? Isn't everything supposed to be a function of thought form?]

(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Now, each of these archetypal "Qualities" or "Names" of God manifest on 4th density in "Archetypal Dramas." This relates us back to Mircea Eliade's concept of the Archetypal Gesture - illud tempus - from the beginning.

"Every hero repeated the archetypal gesture, every war rehearsed the struggle between good and evil, every fresh social injustice was identified with the passion of a divine messenger, each new massacre repeated the glorious end of the martyrs. ..."...All religious acts are held to have been founded by gods, civilizing heroes, or mythical ancestors. ...Not only do rituals have their mythical models, but any human act whatever acquires effectiveness to the extent to which it exactly repeats an act performed at the beginning of time by a god, a hero, or an ancestor." [Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, 1954]

[Comment - The effectiveness of a human act may not depend on the extent to which such an act exactly repeats an act performed at the beginning of time by god, a hero, or an ancestor. In fact, the ‘effectiveness’ or standard of performance may be a function of the extent to which an individual gives expression to his or her own unique spiritual capacity to reflect or give expression to the truth across a diverse array of qualities involving adab (spiritual etiquette) so that everything is given its due (that is, what the truth of a 'thing' requires for that truth to be interacted with appropriately by an individual) according to one’s unique capacity to do so.]

Q: (C) Probably so. How many people are in this particular group that Laura and I are in, for the purpose of this work?
A: Up to you to discover.
Q: (C) Well, I thought I'd give it a shot! Thinking is electrical. Does a person leave an electrical echo and can certain combinations produce harmony which is cumulative and exponential, thereby certain groups thinking can produce more than others, or individually?
A: Close. Now, Suggestion: Combine frequencies to witness the development of a directed wave effect; packs a potent "punch."

[Comment - The foregoing suggestion resonates with the idea of generating a laser-like focus of awareness in which the collective contributions of people are gathered together to develop a force greater than might be generated by a single person. There is an importance to the principle of association, and part of this principle is to gather together constructive, as opposed to problematic forces, for the purpose of assisting the unfolding of one’s essential identity and unique spiritual capacity. A spiritually constructive network becomes a catalytic agent in which all the participants of the networking process are constructively (potentially, depending on niyat or intention) benefitted.]

(From the Cassiopaeans) - Q: (L) Are you suggesting that that we are all part of the same soul unit here?

A: Yes, we are! To an extent, but you may not yet understand what exactly a "soul unit" is in that sense. And of course, there is more than one sense for this as well. The "trick" that 3rd density STS life forms will learn, either prior to transition to 4th density, or at the exact juncture, is to think in absolutely limitless terms. The first and most solid step in this process is to not anticipate at all. This is most difficult for you. We understand this, but this as also why we keep reiterating this point. For example, imagine if one of your past lives is also a future life?

[Comment - Being part of the same soul sets up the possibility of having access to ‘information’ from the lives of other individuals within the same one 'Soul' . Perhaps, we interpret this information to be our own past life because of certain resonances with our own lives which are contained within the experience but which are, in fact, not our past lives. Rather, what is experienced is the life experience of another manifestation of the same one Soul - but experienced through a process of intense, vicarious identification which makes it seem as if such life expriences are our own. This process might be like seeing a movie of someone else's life and identifying with certain aspects of that life story ... we are not the movie, we are only witnesses to that movie.]

(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Myths are only a much later formulation of an archaic content that presuppose an absolute reality, or levels of reality which are extrahuman. If we begin to think that our reality is but a sort of slide show projected from a hyperdimensional realm, we have to begin to think about the archetypal dramas themselves. If we come to the idea that we are extensions of our higher selves, fulfilling the purposes of the great Cosmic Dramas, we come up against a couple of important concepts.

The first of these concepts is Free Will.

Well, going back to what the Shaykh Ibn al-'Arabi had to say about it:

You should know that the divine call includes believer and unbeliever, obedient and disobedient... This call derives only from the divine names. One divine name calls to someone who is governed by the property of a second divine name when it knows that the term of the second name's property within the person has come to an end. Then this name which calls to him takes over. So it continues in this world and the next. Hence everything other than God is called by a divine name to come to an engendered state to which that name seeks to attach it. If the object of the call responds, he is named "obedient" and becomes "felicitous. If he does not respond, he is named "disobedient" and becomes "wretched." [Futuhat, II 592.32]

[Comment - If a divine name calls to someone who is governed by the property of second name when the first name knows that the term of the second name’s property within the person has come to an end, then, some of the questions which arise in conjunction with such a perspective are the following. For instance, what determines how, and to what extent, and why the second name comes to an end? What is it that adjudicates this matter? Is it rizq (Divine allotment), or free will choice, or a combination of the two? Furthermore, as the term of one name comes to an end, what determines which name will call next. and how, and why?

In addition, what does it mean to respond to the call of a name? Does it matter from which dimension of the self (e.g., whether, nafs or heart or spirit) one responds or the intention with which one responds?

Is an individual only governed by one name at a time, or are there a multiplicity of names which combine together to govern and shape the locus of manifestation through which our lives are given expression? Can one pray for another Name to come into one’s life - that is, can one call on Names just as they call to one, or is the very act of an individual’s calling upon a given name but the first stirring that another name has come into one’s life? Are the overtures of the Divine Names arbitrary or is it all done in conjunction with the Divine Himma out of which Creation arose?

Furthermore, knowing a bit of how Ibn al-‘Arabi understands certain issues, one could say that the fact an individual is felicitous or wretched with respect to a given name may depend a lot on the reason one is being called and the intention with which one responds or does not respond to that name. God mis-guides as well as guides, and to be wretched because one has not responded to a call of mis-guidance is a felicitous thing, while from the perspective of the issue of mis-guidance, guidance is wretched.]

(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: (L) OK. Does an electron have a memory? A: Electron is borrowed unit of 7th density. [Comment - What does it mean for an electron to be a borrowed unit of 7th density? Isn't density supposed to represent a certain level of awareness and that the awareness of the 7th density is: all is one? So, how is an electron a borrowed unit of 7th density? Who or What does the borrowing? Why? ]

(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: (L) Is there anything about an atom that holds memory?
A: Memory is subjective, atom is not.

[Comment - What does it mean to say that memory is subjective? Does this mean that one can never remember correctly? What is the nature of subjectivity? Is subjectivity not an expression of consciousness?

Is one's experience of the One subjective according to one's capacity to experience the One? Isn't it possible that something could be both subjective and true - or, subjective and real - at the same time?]

(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: If memory is conscious and subconscious record of perception, as you have stated, and there occurs a "reality merge," as you also described previously, some sort of time manipulation, does this automatically change individual perceptions?

A: Perceptions "leap" into place according to markers in the eternally present continuum.

[Comment - What does it mean to ‘leap’ into place? What are the dynamics of this leaping process? What is the functional relationship between leaping and the process of “according to markers in the eternally present continuum”? What are these markers and how do they shape the leaping? What place are these perceptions leaping into? Are the Cassiopaeans alluding to the point where free will and fate merge together?]

(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: But still, what you said still implies that an atom has an objective existence. Is this correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you please tell us what constitutes objectivity?
A: The effort on the part of the observer to leave prejudice "at the door."

[Comment - There is an ambiguity of sorts which is running through the foregoing communication. On the one hand, there seems to be more than one sense of 'objectivity' in play. On the other hand, there seems to be more than one sense of 'observer' or 'observing consciousness' to which reference is being made.

In one way, the Cassiopaeans appear to be placing the onus of responsibility for objectivity on the observer. Yet, Laura and company seem to be operating from the perspective that if something is said to be objective, then, one is referring to the manner in which that 'thing' is independent of an observer's perspective.

Perhaps, one way of reconciling these perspectives is to maintain that it is the observer’s task to establish resonant congruence with the structural character of a certain aspect of truth in order to have one’s objectivity reflect the way things are objectively - that is, in truth, or as expressions of the way things are. And, the establishing of such congruence is only possible when one leaves all one's prejudices, biases, beliefs, opinions, and ideas at the doorway of perception so that one will be in a postion to merge horizons with the actual way things are.]

(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: How does the effort on the part of the observer to leave prejudice at the door relate to the objective existence of an atom?
A: An atom, as with absolutely everything else, cannot exist without an observer.

[Comment - Are we talking about just any sort of observer, or are we talking about an Observer in the sense of a Divine Observer. Perhaps, Bishop Berkely got some of his philosophical ideas from channeling sessions with the Cassiopaeans - or, their close relatives.]

(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: So, in the case of the objectivity of an atom, if the human observers are not objective, where is the observer who makes the atom objective, or does the atom not exist if there is no observer?

A: Yes. to the latter comment.

[Comment - Again, there is the potential ambiguity running through the communication. On the one hand, there is the consciousness of God, and, on the other hand, there is the sub-set of human consciousness which the former makes possible - although the two are not necessarily co-extensive.

An atom can have a borrowed reality by appearing in the consciousness of Divinity even though human beings may not be aware of the 'existence' of such an atom, and, as such, the objectivity of that atom is independent of human perception. However, human understanding must merge horizons with the structural character of that atom - to whatever extent this is possible - in order to apprehend the atom in an objective sense - that is, the way the atom exists in the consciousness of Divinity.]

(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: So there must be an observer. Must the observer be human?
A: The observer must be a consciousness.
Q: If you say that an atom has an objective existence, yet it only exists if it is perceived by a consciousness, then an atom does not have an objective existence, correct?
A: No.
Q: Okay, what is the distinction? You say that objectivity is the ATTEMPT on the part of the observer to leave prejudice at the door.
A: Without consciousness, there is neither objective or subjective!!
Q: So the crux is the attempt to leave prejudice at the door in the same manner as one would be non-anticipatory in order to create?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, that is a VERY tricky... (A) Is consciousness objective?
A: Consciousness is objective, until it has the capacity to choose to be otherwise.
Q: What is the stimulus for the change, for the giving of the capacity to choose?
A: The introduction of prejudice.

[Comment - Why does a consciousness choose to go with prejudice rather than objectivity? Who introduces prejudice? Perhaps, there is a choice that goes on prior to the switch in direction away from objectivity toward prejudice, and this consists in one choosing to listen to the call of nafs (the carnal soul) and/or Iblis in re-framing the choice such that this choice becomes inclined toward the lower self, rather than, the higher Self. But, then, one can ask the same question again: why does one choose to allign with the lower self rather than the higher Self?]

(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: In a cosmic sense, cosmic consciousness, in the sense of The One Unified Consciousness, what is the stimulus there for the ability to choose?
A: When the journey has reached union with The One, all such lessons have been completed.

[Comment - What the Cassiopaeans may be saying here (trying to put their communications in as good a light as possible - in the sense that those communications constitute a plausible and sincere attempt to explain reality) is that part of the Divine Himma (Aspiration) is for all fixed forms to choose according to their potential and capacity, and when all of the lessons associated with these choices have been learned, then, the journey of Himma has reached Union with the One (although it was never out of harmony or union with the One) in the realm of manifested reality - that is, the Divine Purpose has been realized and the Hidden Treasure has come to be known.]

(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) This is the point at which we begin to understand our reality. The Celestial myths are the archaic representations of the Archetypes. In studying these stories and their characters we can have access to very deep knowledge about any human situation or drama in which we may find ourselves. We can also identify which character, or part, we are being activated to "play." Once we have identified the drama of the moment (which may extend over years or even an entire lifetime, or merely be a "mini-drama" of a few minutes, hours or days' duration), we can fully activate our participation WITH SOME DEGREE OF CONTROL.

[Comment - Myths, dreams, and symbols are important because they give expression to clues concerning the Nature of the Passion Play involving the Divine Names, together with hints as to how this Passion Play may generate the experiences by means of which we learn what is necessary to realize our essential identity and unique spiritual capacity so that we may fully participate in the worship of the Passion Play which constitutes the many changing faces of Divinity. As such, Archetypes - to whatever extent they manifest themselves in a person’s life - may not be important in and of themselves.

Archetypes are not necessarily terminal points of understanding, but, rather, may just be loci of manifestation through which clues concerning the Divine Himma and our relationship to that Himma are given expression. Spiritual possibilities, principles, values, methods, dangers, obstacles, and understanding may be played out, to varying degrees, through the manifestation of the phenomena which are, sometimes, referred to as Archetypes but which are, actually, the symbolic structures created, on a certain level, by the play of Divine Names for purposes of learning about different facets and dimensions of life’s purpose and nature that transcend those Archetypes.]

(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) By recognizing the play, by acknowledging our "part," we have formed a link between ourselves and the director, producer and writer of the production at the higher densities! We are psychically "linked" to them in a real and symbiotic way. And, by being linked, we can have access to a Free Will that is not ordinarily accessible.

[Comment - Free will is free will. Why should there be more of it that is accessible at some given level. Perhaps, like a lever, when one learns how to locate the fulcrum of life, one can move, by the Grace of God, a lot more with the same amount of free effort than one could previously when one was struggling to ‘lift’ things in a context where one didn’t know how to locate the fulcrum of events and move things or shift things to whatever extent is permissible under those circumstances.]

(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Joseph Chilton Pearce was aware that there was something deeper and more involved in our reality than many suppose, and he called it the "Cosmic Egg." Well, he may have been more right about this than he ever suspected. If Thought Centers are Cosmic Eggs laid at 6th density, and hatched and nurtured at 4th density, then we have only one issue to deal with at THIS density, and that is WHICH EGG IS OURS?

[Comment - Why would a cosmic egg be laid at the 6th level? Why not at the seventh level or higher? If Himma gives rise to creation, and the cosmic eggs which allegedly make up the woof and warp of Creation - across the many levels, realms and dimensions - then, perhaps, the laying of cosmic eggs happens much earlier and much more fundamentally than Laura and company suppose.

Why should cosmic eggs only be hatched and nurtured on 4th density? This seems rather arbitrary? Why wouldn’t the cosmic eggs encompass the Divine Names and nurture what hatches across every level of Being? Why would one wish to identify the idea of a Cosmic egg with a Thought Center, or, if such identity is accepted, then, what determines the character of the 'Cosmic Egg' which will be laid? What shapes, colors, and defines what the structural character of any given Cosmic egg will be?]

Return to 'Food For Thought' Menu