(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Now, remember that the Cassiopaeans said that the Tower of Babel was designed to artificially concentrate all gravity waves and that this would result in "unification" which the Control System immediately saw as a threat. From the above, we can conjecture that the remark about "concentrating ALL gravity waves" must refer to the aligning of individuals as containing access to God, considering that the "sum total of all existence exists within each" human being in the form of gravity. Sounds to me like they are describing what is known today as the zero-point energy state.
[Comment - “To artificially concentrate all gravity waves that results in a unification”, may mean something quite different that what Laura and company are thinking. It may be a way of indicating that by hermeneutically imposing one’s own problematic niyat (intention), himma (aspiration), purpose, identity, and understanding onto God’s Himma, the Tower of Babel Project served to bring everyone together in a manner that is other than what God wishes - that is, artificially, and, therefore, not 'naturally'.
The Tower of Babel story or myth is not about human beings attempting to do something which is constructive. Instead, it about human beings seeking to build their own stairway to heaven or spiritual realization, and in doing so, they fell out of unity and into an array of ways through which to interpret experience - which is symbolized by the rise of many different tongues or languages.
The Tower of Babel was not a threat to Divinity, and if Divinity were really trying to control humankind, God would never have given human beings free will. The Tower of Babel was a threat to humankind because it constituted a falling away from the truth, together with a seeking to re-invent the spiritual wheel through human limitations, rather than Divine Knowledge - as such, the Tower of Babel constituted an abuse of free will.
Finally, I'm not quite clear on why one should suppose that the "sum total of all existence exists within each" human being in the form of gravity ... sounds to me like they are describing what is known today as the zero-point energy state. Until one knows exactly how the Cassiopaeans are employing the term "gravity", or what they mean by it, or whether they even know what they are talking about, then, trying to equate the way in which 'all existence exists in each human being in the form of gravity' with the idea of zero-point energy seems rather premature and not well-founded.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) David Bohm computed the "zero-point energy" due to quantum-mechanical fluctuations in a single cubic centimeter of space, and arrived at the energy of 10 38 ergs. This amounts to the energy equivalent of about ten billion tons of uranium. Joseph Chilton Pearce compares this zero-point energy proposal to the saying of Jesus that if we have the "faith of a grain of mustard seed," we might move mountains. There is a little catch, however: according to David Bohm, under present conditions this energy is inaccessible in the material sense. It is merely a mathematical representation of a theoretical "state." But, as we have already proposed, this "zero point energy" source is really the state of pure non-anticipation of the left brain in its analysis of the observations made through the right brain thought processes - it is the mirror of mirrors of Grail consciousness.
[Comment - Laura may be confusing or conflating physical and spiritual realms. She may also be getting misled by her own speculations concerning the meaning of gravity waves - which may be intended in a metaphysical/symbolic/analogical sense, and not in a literal sense ... although, in keeping with the principle of ‘as above, so below’, physical gravity may reflect some of the properties of the metaphysical sort of gravity.
Even if the theoretical calculation of Bohm turned out to be, in some sense, correct, why should one suppose that the statement attributed to Jesus (peace be upon him) - namely, that if we had the faith of a grain of mustard seed, we might move mountains - is in some way connected to, or analous to, the proposed energy of the zero point state? Apparently, those people who under the influence of the way in which physical principles are manifested in the material realm believe that the maxim is: 'As below, so above' when there is no presumptive reason for arguing in this fashion. Why suppose that faith is a species of energy or that faith is a means of transducing spiritual forces into material units of energy?
Moreover, equating zero point energy to a "state of pure non-anticipation of the left brain" seems rather something more than a quantum jump - especially given that the idea of zero-point energy is a theoretical concept rather than something which has been technologically harnessed and understood to provide practical applications in everyday life. One might also note in passing that if one were really in a pure state of non-anticipation, there might be no wish to 'move mountains', and, therefore, one wonders what faith has to do with states of pure non-anticipation? In addition, although Laura has theorized that pure non-anticipation is a function of the left brain "in its analysis of the observations made through the right brain thought processes," there really is no hard evidence to substantiate such a conjecture, and, yet, Laura makes it sound like this is all well-documented and demonstrated.
Finally, why should I want access to zero-point energy? Even if one could get access to this, what does this have to do, if anything, with spirituality, identity, capacity, meaning, and Divine purpose?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) A name, in esoteric terms, is considered identical with the thing itself; it is a spiritual "handle" by which one becomes aware of how to deal with a person, thing or issue. Ancient Britons believed that the name and the soul were the same and there are many stories about Celtic heroes refusing to give their names to strangers. In some myths, knowledge of the name could bring destruction as is noted in the fairy tale of Rumpelstiltzkin.
[Comment - There may be occult resonances between a name and that reality or aspect of reality to which the name makes identifying reference, but the real nature of a thing in itself is a function of the way the Names of Divinity come together, according to Himma, to give manifested expression through a particular locus which carries a linguistic label which alludes to, but is not the same as, the reality being labeled. People may have been reluctant to give their names because the label can be used as a means of tracking the person being labeled and this tracking process can be the conduit through which occult influences are introduced.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) From all the things we have discussed so far, it seems reasonable to assume that the oldest civilizations had some knowledge of sound as a means of creation and destruction. The belief that such forces could be activated by pronouncing a divine name is only a pale remnant of that knowledge.
[Comment - To suppose that spiritual understanding is a devolution or degradation of earlier knowledge of natural phenomenon, such as sound, may be a mistake. To suppose that knowledge rooted in an understanding of the physical world is superior to spiritual knowledge, may also be a mistake.
This would be like trying to make the profane sacred, and the sacred profane. Laura and company may have things mixed up when, on the basis of a certain amount of limited evidence, the interpolation is made that gives knowledge of the natural world priority over spiritual understanding and which treats the latter as a corruption of the former sort of 'technology'.]
(From the Bible) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. He was present originally with God. All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being. In Him was Life and the Life was the Light of Men. And the Light shines on in the darkness, for the darkness has never overpowered it, and is unreceptive to it. [John 1: 1-5, Amplified, Zondervan]
[Comment - This is also descriptive of certain aspects or dimensions of the essence of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). According to the literature of Hadith, the Muhammadan Reality is referred to as a Prophet before Adam (peace be upon him) was between water and clay, and the Muhammadan Reality was the first thing that Divinity created - that is, the light of the spirit of the Muhammadan Reality ... the well-spring or locus of manifestation through which the entire Prophetic tradition and the rest of Creation came into manifested being.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The word "Logos," in Greek, means "word." When it was used in archaic, esoteric terms, it had a more specific meaning which was that "Divine Essence" was concentrated in its Name. This theory of creation was passed from Tantrism to Neoplatonic philosophy, and was later adopted into Christianity and from there, it was suggested to apply only to Jesus. The Christian enthusiasm for this idea may have been related to the fact that it provided exclusively male gods the means by which to give birth! They could just "speak the word" and that was that! Thus, it has become a widely known and popular theological construct.
However, the ability to create and destroy with words was originally the domain of the Goddess in all her many manifestations. She created alphabets, languages and secret words of power, or Mantras. Every manifestation of life was brought into being by the "supreme syllable and mother of all sounds, Ohm."
[Comment - This constant, fractious gender warfare is tiring and, more importantly, useless. Really, what does it mean to call spiritual entities either male or female when no biology is involved, and without biology, the whole process of assigning qualities of maleness and femaleness to this or that attribute seems rather arbitrary and pointless?
Maleness and femaleness, on this level, becomes a matter of hermeneutics, and, in addition, has to do with functions and processes that have nothing to do with either gender or biology, Yet, many people are trying to claim authority for the superiority of one gender over another in the ever-present attempt to gain one-up-personship to support a desire to feel superior or to control or to put down ... and this is true of both men and women.
Secondly, whether ‘Ohm’ is the mother of all sounds is really debateble, and this is a debate which can never be proven. It may be a sacred sound, but, it is only theologies which try to claim proprietary rights with respect to what is the greatest sacred sound.
Similarly, although the Qur’an indicates that “Kun” (Be) is the sound through which Created things arose, must we suppose that God only spoke Arabic when Creation was being manifested. Isn’t it possible that the term “Kun” serves as a metaphor or symbol or analogy for the process of Creation and, as such, gives human beings something that is within their relative understanding to grasp some of the structural character of the process of Creation.
As such, what is important is not the word, per se, but the Himma (Aspiration) or Divine Niyat (Intention) to Create which stands behind the 'speech' which gives 'outward' expression to that Divine Intention/Aspiration. Moreover, this Intention was manifested through each thing which was created and such intentionality is like Divinity speaking to a part of that Intention to be or become in a particular form or locus of manifestation.]
(From the Cassiopaeans) - Q: (L) Is there only one ultimate creator of the universe?
A: All is one. And one is all.
Q: (L) How does thought become matter?
A: Bilaterally.
Q: (L) What do you mean by "bilaterally?"
A: Dual emergence.
Q: (L) Emergence into what and what?
A: Not "into what and what," but rather, "from what and to what."
[Comment - According to some of the great Sufi shaykhs, ‘ayn al-thabitat (fixed forms which constitute the spectrum of potentials encompassed by Creation) may figure in here, because the Divine Command: ‘Be’, to become, is directed to this fixed form. Although the fixed form never comes into actual existence, the Names use the fixed form as a template, as it were, to give expression to a structure which is a reflection of the fixed form. Thus, the emergence is from God, to God, via the interplay of the fixed forms and the Divine Names - both of which are manifestations of Divinity, as is the Himma which initiates the process of what becomes when, as well as how, why, and where what becomes when.]
(From the Cassiopaeans) - Q: (L) What emerges from what?
A: The beginning emerges from the end, and vice versa.
Q: (L) And what is the beginning and what is the end?
[Comment - The beginning is the Hidden Treasure that loves to be known, and the end is the Himma which sees, all at once, the entire realization of the Plan for the unfolding of this Treasure.]
(From the Cassiopaeans) - Q: (L) Okay, who created the Cassiopaeans?
A: Your super ancient spiritual ancestors.
[Comment - Why were the Cassiopaeans created and what were they created as - 6th density beings? Fixed forms with certain potentials? Are they human? Non-human? Jinn? Some other form of being? Do they have any biology associated with them?]
Q: (L) Do these beings have a name?
A: No. They are Transient passengers.
Q: (L)What is the meaning of this term and who are these beings?
A: Transient passengers are not beings. Transient Passengers are unified thought form.
[Comment - Don't unified thought forms have being? If they are not beings, do they have intentionality, purpose, values, origins, intelligence, and so on? Where did these unified thought forms come from and what gave them their forms, and why is the plural being used? Is there more than one kind of unified thought form? What, if anything, do these unified thought forms have to do with the Names of God? Whose thoughts are these unified thought forms? What is meant by 'thoughts'?]
What does it mean to say that ‘unified thought form’ created the Cassiopaeans? Created how? And, who created the Transient Passengers? And, how was this done? And, why would one describe unified thought form as our "super ancient spiritual ancestors"? And in what sense are the Transient Passengers our spiritual ancestors?]
Q: (L) Why are they called Transient Passengers?
A: Because they transit all forms of reality. And they spring forth from the Unified form of existence.
[Comment - What is the 'Unified form of existence'? Why must unity have a form? How did the character of the 'form' come to be? What is the nature of this ‘springing forth’ and how and why does it take place?
(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: (L) You say that you are unified thought forms in the realm of knowledge.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Ibn Al-'Arabi describes unified thought forms as being the 'Names of God.' His explication seems to be so identical to things you tell us that I wonder...
A: We are all the names of God. Remember, this is a conduit. This means that both termination/origination points are of equal value, importance.
Q: (L) What do you mean? Does this mean that we are a part of this?
A: Yes. Don't deify us. And, be sure all others with which you communicate understand this too! Remember.
[Comment - if they do not wish to be deified, then, they are saying that while they while they are Divine in essence, they are not Divinity in Essence - there is a distinction between the Creator and the Created]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) 1st density includes all physical matter below the level of consciousness. 6th density is uniform in the level pattern of lightness, as there is complete balance on this density level, and the lightness is represented as knowledge.
[Comment - What makes Laura think that all facets of Creation, including the lowest levels of physical matter, don' t have consciousness of some kind? Why maintain that all spiritual capacities are necessarily the same with respect to the alleged 'uniformity' "in the level pattern of lightness is concerned"? The brightness of some modes of light may be greater than the brightness of other forms of light.
According to Sufi shaykhs, creation does not repeat itself, so, everything gives expression to a unique form of lightness. There may be complete balance but it is in accordance with the Divine notion of harmony and not human notions of harmony.]
(From the Cassiopaeans) 7th density is union with the one... it is timeless in every sense of the word, as its "essence" radiates through all that exists in all possible awareness realms. The light one sees at the termination of each conscious physical manifestation is the Union, itself. Remember, 4th density is the first that includes variable physicality!! Ponder this carefully!!! And, remember, there is only one "God," and that the creator includes all that is created and vice versa!
[Comments - If the Cassiopaeans are 6th density beings, then, how do they know what 7th density consists in - whether this have to do with the issue of time or any other quality or property? Even if one agrees that the Creator includes, in some sense, all that is created, why should one suppose, as the Cassiopaeans appear to be doing, that the reverse is also true - namely, that creation contains all of the Creator? How does the latter follow from the former or be co-extensive with the former?]
Furthermore, if time is an illusion and does not exist, then, the whole idea of going back in time is also an illusion and does not take place or, perhaps, another way of saying this is that the idea of going back in time - even if experienced or interpreted as such - does not actually take place and is illusory in nature - until one knows the nature of this illusion, one cannot really say what actually happens in those events which are described as time-travel.]<]br>
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Now, in trying to think through this idea, I wanted to have a visual image. I struggled for months to think of a way to present it with little success. Finally, it occurred to me that the Cabalistic Tree of Life might be a useful form to work with. I found an image in a book, and it didn't seem quite the thing, but I thought I could play with it a bit, modify it, and get it to do what I wanted, so I put it on the scanner to make an image. When I did, the way the scanner was sitting forced me to have to place the book upside down. When the image came up on the screen, reversed, I immediately recognized that this WAS useful! So here is my little modification of the Tree of Life that represents the Cosmos, or "Body of God." (And many thanks to my husband, Ark, for this image!)
[Comment - To speak in terms of God having a 'body' may be misleading and distorting in relation to the qualities of Divinity. The Cosmos are but manifestations of the interaction of the Divine Names according to the Divine Himma out of which Creation emerged. Although Creation and the Cosmos exist as manifestations of the Divine Names and, as such, carry the imprint of the original Divine Himma - which is on-going - the One from whom the Himma arose is independent of Creation and existed prior to Creation and cannot be reduced to Creation. Conequently, the Cosmos is not really the 'body' of Divinty but, rather, something which Divinity makes possible through the play of the Divine Names and Attributes]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The Logos idea is actually almost identical to the Oriental concept of the Oversoul which was supposed to be the essence of the Great Mother. Origen wrote:
"As our body while consisting of human members is yet held together by one soul, so the universe is to be thought of as an immense living being which is held together by one soul, the power of the logos."
[Comment - From the perspective of the Sufi mystical tradition, the one soul being referred to above is the Muhammadan Reality. But whatever label one wishes to place on this Reality (whether Logos, Muhammadan Reality, Oversoul, or some other term), that 'reality' is the Unity to which the Divine Command of ‘be’ was given, and out of this Unity arose the multiplicity of the spectrum of creation as the focus of Himma shone through the prism of that 'Soul's form.
The structuring of the one soul, its qualities, potential, organization, purpose, limitations, and possibilities ( which consist of the individual and collective character of the fixed forms which constitute, or are contained within, the one soul) came from outside that one soul. The soul did not create itself but was created by That which extends beyond the horizons of that one soul.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The doctrine of the Logos was so widespread in the ancient world that it would have been impossible for Christians to ignore it. However, not only did they appropriate its use to their own ends, they also destroyed the ancient Logoi, or sacred writings of the Orphics, mentioned by Plato and other philosophers. This was a large portion of the Wisdom Literature we have already discussed which survived in part in the Bible, and was also preserved in fragments in certain Gnostic writings discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945. The Gospel of Truth says:
When the Word appeared, the Word which is in the hearts of those who pronounced It...It was not only a sound, but It had taken on a body as well. [The Gnostic Gospels]
Christians gave the idea very simplistic interpretation, assuming the "body" was Christ's. The more perceptive of the ancient writers intended to say that man, the nomothete, creates all his gods out of his Word.
[Comment - There is a certain ambiguity in the foregoing position. Human beings, the nomothete, use our hermeneutical renderings of experience to project our constructed understandings of reality onto the latter to create a hermeneutical vaneer through which we engage that reality. We use the experience which ‘the Word’ makes possible, to describe, explain, and speculate about the nature of the Reality to which the ‘Word’ gives expression through the one soul of the Muhammadan Reality.
The nomothetes who, by the Grace of God, come to properly realize the relationship between the Created and the Creator merge horizons, via their realization or understanding, with the Word through which Creation arises. The words they give to 'things' reflects the truth of the Word through which such things were created.
The nomothetes who do not come to properly realize the relationship between the Created and the Creator, project masks, veils, paradigms, and theories onto the Face of Reality which is manifested through the Word. The words which these individuals give to 'things' reflects their own ignorance rather than the truth of things. The Tower of Babel is deeply rooted in the latter tradition.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) However, in keeping with our "mirror image" of the Cosmic tree, we have designated the two axes as STS [Service to Self] and STO [Service to Others]. On the STS axis, beings that "graduate" become more and more "encapsulated" until, at 5th density, they exist completely in thought with no activity whatsoever.
[Comment - Is not thought itself a form of activity which carries within itself its own dynamic of movement according to the structural character of the thought? And Who, really, is doing the thinking according to the limitations of the medium of the fixed form? And what is meant by thought and what is meant by activity?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) At some point, these contractile energies "gain sufficient weight" to "graduate" to 6th density, at which point, in contact with All Knowledge, they perceive their true function which is to "regenerate at level 1 as primal atoms." This occurs at the same "instant" that STO energies have "gained weight" on an opposing axis, and rise to Union with the One.
[Comment - Who says, and what verifies, the contention that the ‘true function’ of a 6th density ‘contractile energy is to “regenerate at level 1 as primal atoms”? What exactly is a primal atom and why is becoming a primary atom the true function of a 6th density being, and how does a 6th density being become a primary atom? How do ‘contractile energies’ ‘gain sufficient weight to graduate to 6th density, and what is the nature of such weight and how does one assess what constitutes sufficiency here? And what, exactly, is a ‘contractile energy’?
Description, even when true, is not explanation. Unfortunately, there is much in what both the Cassiopaeans and Laura say which is devoid of explanation even as their descriptions allude, without substantive content, to the idea that something more than desciption is being stated.]
(From Cassiopaeans) - Q: (T) When we put out energy as positive or negative energy, there are beings on other levels that feed on this energy, is this true?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Okay, and you said that the Lizzies feed on the negative energy?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Who feeds on the positive energy?
[Comment - What is ‘positive’ and ‘negative energy’? Is it really a matter of “energy”, or is the term “energy” just a useful way of referring to a process of spiritual exchange which may be either constructive or problematic.]
(From Cassiopaeans) - A: You do.
Q: (T) How do we feed on the positive energy?
A: Progression toward union with the one, i.e. level 7.
Q: (L) In other words, you fuel your own generator instead of fueling someone else's. (T) You are at level 6, what do you feed on?
A: You have the wrong concept. We give to others and receive from others of the STO. We feed each other.
[Comment - Why is there any need for “feeding” at 6th level, STO, density? What is the nature of the ‘food’, and why is it necessary? And, why shouldn’t one suppose that God is the provider of all ‘foods’ irrespective of the level of density being considered? Why is it necessary for them to feed one another - or, is this just a manner of speaking ... using secondary causes as an allusion to the presence of Primary Causes?]
(From Cassiopaeans) Q: (B) Are you a great distance from us in light years?
A: Distance is a 3rd density idea. [According to the Cassiopaeans, 3rd density is the level of awareness on which most human beings exist at the present time.]
[Comment - The notion of 'distance' may be hermeneutical, not physical. If all that exists is ‘thought’, then, the distance between any two thoughts is the degree of incongruence between the two, and incongruence becomes a difficult idea to measure or quantify when one is dealing with an array of qualities, understandings, dimensions, behaviors, intentions, and so on.]
(From Cassiopaeans) Q: (B) What do you mean by traveling on the wave?
A: Traveling on thoughts.
Q: (L) Whose thoughts are they?
A: Thoughts unify all reality in existence and are all shared.
[Comment - Himma (Divine Aspiration) is not necessarily thought, per se, but it does have a structural character, or set of properties/qualities associated with it, or to which the Himma gives expression. This set of properties/qualities may have the aura of thought about it, but one might further ask as to how does intention come to have the structure it does? Do we 'think' our way to intention or is intention a choice which is made among possibilities, or is intention a reflection of our spiritual inclinations or aspirations, or is intention a combination of all the foregoing, and, possibly, more?
Is Himma a function of the Creative dimension of being, and, if so, what exactly is this creative function and how does it derive its structural character? Is imagination a matter of thought? Or, is it a matter of something else? How does imagination generate the creative structures it does? Is it necessarily a matter or expression of ‘thought’?
What makes thought possible? What is thought?]
Q: (S) You travel on a wave of energy created by all thought forms?
A: Thought forms are all that exists!
[Comment - This is tantamount to saying that Divinity is nothing more than a thought form, but individuals such as ibn al-‘Arabin (and the Qur'an says this as well) are quite clear that Divinity is beyond anything we can imagine or conceive and totally transcendent (even whiile remaining immanent), so, to reduce Divinity down to thought would appear to be a fundamental error. The nature of thought is dependent on Divinity, not vice versa.
There is no understanding which we can have which permits us to gain insight into how Essence is, or ‘operates’, or ‘communicates’ with Itself - every concept, thought, or understanding will be a distortion of that which transcends all concepts, thoughts, and understanding.
In addition, the Cassiopaeans have said elsewhere such things as: all is illusory, and and all is gravity, and all is just a matter of lessons to be learned. So, one wonders what makes learning about the gravitational nature of thought illusory, or, said in another way, one wonders how all of these terms (thought, gravity, illusion, and learning) fit together, given that each is stated in such a categorical fashion?]
Return to 'Food For Thought' Menu
|
