7th level density limitations

[benbuehne]

In my pondering I thought I would toss this discussion out there... and the answer may be out there but I didn't see it. I see mostly discussion of limitations from our 3D selves.

When we look at what is supposed the meaning of our life it appears that it is to gain knowledge and learn. There seems to be an interesting parallel that can be drawn between our existence here and a neuron individually in the brain. In other words, no individual neuron in our brain is aware of the cumulative knowledge of the brain but the brain is aware... however individual neurons do learn and grow in their own way and because of this the brain has the knowledge.

But what can we say if we look at this in reverse? After-all, we have difficulty imagining life from the 2D perspective and that is but one density away and is still beneath us. We personify animals because of this. And what of the 1st density? We seem to have no real comprehension of this in terms of being able to put ourselves in the shoes of one in the 1st density from what I have seen thus far.

From what I have gathered thus far, the 7th density doesn't have a physical manifestation... nor does the 5th or 6th. So this seems to be a limitation of the 7th density. We also know what it takes to ascend densities as well as what the 7th density desires which is knowledge and learning. This seems very similar to what we desire from our neurons IMHO.

We also know that STS seems to be undesirable as opposed to STO. This makes sense in terms of the perspective of a 7th density being made up of the "Other" with less regard to individual selves. It's an interesting concept however, as this seems to be a form of STS when looking at a 7th density being. In the 7th density the being has a desire for STO which serves the 7th density and thus would be a selfish motive of the 7th density. Of coarse it's said that balance is needed and that this STS must exist... this is also servering a purpose though and it seems that the existence of anything runs deeper than simply saying that other beings wish to leech off of us in STS... so what is the fundamental reason of existence of STS?

Using this analogy, 3rd density seems to be an essential part of existence as would every other density. The sum cannot exist without the individual parts. Our 3rd density selves, existing physically and within the illusion of time, thus serves this purpose of acquiring knowledge.

In terms of being int he 7th density however, there seem to be difficulties in communicating things. There is often almost a cop out... hey you couldn't understand this concept. Is it that we cannot understand or is it that when in the 7th density it's difficult to comprehend how to explain this to a 3rd density being? Is it maybe difficult to understand physicality as it is difficult for us to understand our individual neurons... only knowing we want them to gather and transmit information effectively as part of a whole?

So if the ultimate goal is lessons and knowledge, to what is the fundamental knowledge the existence of STS providing to the 7th density that allows for this existence? Does this have anything to do with the limitations of the 7th density? Also, could it be that we are being mislead and that there has not been communication with the 7th density? Is some other 4th, 5th, 6th, density required to allow for translation and deliverance of messages to us? Maybe the desired method of this results in it going through a being desiring knowledge and thus a different form of leeching is occurring and perverting the message?

I'm not saying any of this is true... just pondering... and thought I would invite others to ponder with me. My apologies if the answer to some of this is out there and I have yet to come across it.

I guess the sum question would be... IMHO it seems that there is a reason for existence at this density... is the 7th density limited and if so in what ways and if so does the existence of the 3rd density have something to do with the limitations of the 7th density? Do these different densities exist for a reason and are these reasons limitations of other densities (lessons only capable of being learned in the present density?)

Thanking you in advance!

 

[Carl]

What is the ultimate grand purpose of existence? I don't even see the point in pondering that question at our current level of being. There are 3 whole densities between us and 7th. That is greater than the 'distance' between an atom and a human being.

Plus, the 7 densities are just a model, and you can be sure that all of creation is infinitely more complex than that. There are no words to describe the feeling I get when I try hard to ponder the machinations of even 4th density (unspeakable melancholy is what "Don Juan" calls it), so how you can expect to sit and speculate and get something meaningful out of trying to ponder 7th density I do not know. "Limitation"? I suspect there is no such thing, except artificial limitation for the purpose of learning.

The idea that the whole of creation is just for "lessons" seems like a bit of a cop out at our level. But perhaps that word has a much deeper meaning on higher levels. The C's have also hinted (I can't remember the session) that there is some purpose to it all, but we cannot possibly understand it.

 

[benbuehne]

What is the ultimate grand purpose of existence? I don't even see the point in pondering that question at our current level of being. There are 3 whole densities between us and 7th. That is greater than the 'distance' between an atom and a human being.

Plus, the 7 densities are just a model, and you can be sure that all of creation is infinitely more complex than that. There are no words to describe the feeling I get when I try hard to ponder the machinations of even 4th density, so how you can expect to sit and speculate and get something meaningful out of trying to ponder 7th density I do not know. "Limitation"? I suspect there is no such thing, except artificial limitation for the purpose of learning.

The idea that the whole of creation is just for "lessons" seems like a bit of a cop out at our level. But perhaps that word has a much deeper meaning on higher levels. The C's have also hinted (I can't remember the session) that there is some purpose to it all, but we cannot possibly understand it.

In terms of the point of thinking about this... my thought process is as such. If we can figure out what the 3rd density would uniquely teach us as opposed to different densities then wouldn't this give us a clue as to what we needed to learn to move on? The only way to figure that out seems to be that you would need to best try to figure out the big picture IMHO... and I could certainly be wrong.

So that's why I asked the question and felt it fruitful. It just seemed to be a useful train of thought but one boggling me and I can't quite comprehend all of this so I wanted help.

 

[anart]

What is the ultimate grand purpose of existence? I don't even see the point in pondering that question at our current level of being. There are 3 whole densities between us and 7th. That is greater than the 'distance' between an atom and a human being.

Plus, the 7 densities are just a model, and you can be sure that all of creation is infinitely more complex than that. There are no words to describe the feeling I get when I try hard to ponder the machinations of even 4th density, so how you can expect to sit and speculate and get something meaningful out of trying to ponder 7th density I do not know. "Limitation"? I suspect there is no such thing, except artificial limitation for the purpose of learning.

The idea that the whole of creation is just for "lessons" seems like a bit of a cop out at our level. But perhaps that word has a much deeper meaning on higher levels. The C's have also hinted (I can't remember the session) that there is some purpose to it all, but we cannot possibly understand it.

In terms of the point of thinking about this... my thought process is as such. If we can figure out what the 3rd density would uniquely teach us as opposed to different densities then wouldn't this give us a clue as to what we needed to learn to move on? The only way to figure that out seems to be that you would need to best try to figure out the big picture IMHO... and I could certainly be wrong.

So that's why I asked the question and felt it fruitful. It just seemed to be a useful train of thought but one boggling me and I can't quite comprehend all of this so I wanted help.

The problem with your wiseacring here is that you're starting with basic assumptions that are likely to be untrue. That is the problem of trying to consider infinity from a limited, linear, 3D perspective. We can't - we aren't "built for it". You state that: "7th density doesn't have a physical manifestation... nor does the 5th or 6th. So this seems to be a limitation of the 7th density."

Why would you think that lack of physicality is a "limitation"? It doesn't logically follow from an energetic perspective and what we hypothesize (what we think we know) about energy and matter. Also, STS is not undesirable, as you put it, compared to STO - they are both equally "desirable", depending on ones perspective and what is "in one" to do. In fact, one could not exist without the other, in any real sense. So, that's another of many assumptions that you're making and when you start a philosophical discussion with shaky underlying assumptions, it's really not very useful.

In short - 'we can't see that from here' and, while entertaining to wiseacre about, it's really not something you're going to understand until you get there and you won't get there until you focus on being "here" and all that entails. Have you had a chance to read the entire Wave Series yet?

 

[Carl]

In terms of the point of thinking about this... my thought process is as such. If we can figure out what the 3rd density would uniquely teach us as opposed to different densities then wouldn't this give us a clue as to what we needed to learn to move on? The only way to figure that out seems to be that you would need to best try to figure out the big picture IMHO... and I could certainly be wrong.

So that's why I asked the question and felt it fruitful. It just seemed to be a useful train of thought but one boggling me and I can't quite comprehend all of this so I wanted help.

The point is that we can't, by design, see the whole picture. We are doing our best to get the big picture of third density, which is the reason we are here, to gain 'simple karmic understandings'. Would it be fruitful, while learning basic arithmetic, to try to understand the particulars and applications of differential equations?

The only way we really learn the lessons that we need to learn is by being here in the jungle for ourselves, and learning to distinguish truth from lies. I know how you feel, and how my heart longs to lift this veil of blindness and understand the great cosmic picture. But we are here for a reason at the end of the day. We must try to understand everything we can, and choose our path accordingly, building our staircase step by step so that when we reach that level of knowledge, our being is ready to assimilate it.

 

[benbuehne]

The problem with your wiseacring here is that you're starting with basic assumptions that are likely to be untrue. That is the problem of trying to consider infinity from a limited, linear, 3D perspective. We can't - we aren't "built for it". You state that: "7th density doesn't have a physical manifestation... nor does the 5th or 6th. So this seems to be a limitation of the 7th density."

Why would you think that lack of physicality is a "limitation"? It doesn't logically follow from an energetic perspective and what we hypothesize (what we think we know) about energy and matter. Also, STS is not undesirable, as you put it, compared to STO - they are both equally "desirable", depending on ones perspective and what is "in one" to do. In fact, one could not exist without the other, in any real sense. So, that's another of many assumptions that you're making and when you start a philosophical discussion with shaky underlying assumptions, it's really not very useful.

In short - 'we can't see that from here' and, while entertaining to wiseacre about, it's really not something you're going to understand until you get there and you won't get there until you focus on being "here" and all that entails. Have you had a chance to read the entire Wave Series yet?

Well the reason I think that lack of physicality is a limitation is because it seems to be stated as such. I had seen that the Cassiopaeans stated that the last density where physicality is possible is the 4th density. As such, at 7th density physicality is not possible and things not possible then are a limitation. I'm looking at this as a neuron... I am... in certain ways capable of sending neurotransmitters around but I really like the knowledge of any single neuron. So even though from the neuron's point of view I seem all powerful at the micro level I'm useless and have limitations.

On top of that the abilities of groups seems highlighted in the series and as such while it may not be possible for ME to comprehend maybe if we each get a part of it... as is the way our brain congregates information from individual neurons... maybe it is possible.

I have not read the Wave series in full as of yet.

I understand your desire to not waste effort Anart. However when struck with an intriguing idea I tend to get stuck and as I was stuck in this one I wanted to reach out for assistance. If it's believed such thoughts are irrelevant than I suppose there is a need to move on.

I would also clarify that STS, it is indeed necessary but when looking at higher densities it is not there... only STO. That then would reflect STO more a property of higher densities... STS of lower densities... then begging the question of if higher densities are desired and desirable. Wouldn't it? Would then the qualities of higher densities such as STO be desirable? There is a difference between acceptance of reality and the balance... and desiring one over the other. In particular, in our current state we would then desire higher density wouldn't we?

Forgive my curious nature.

I will also, as I had before, caution against deciding not to revisit previous consensus. It can be a waste of effort at times... however at other times retracing your steps helps you find something previously missed.

If I'm boring you or wasting your time I'm sorry. The general feeling was that contributing while walking a path... well it may help myself and everyone else.

Mirror appreciated.

 

[Carl]

I think you will gain a much better understanding by catching up with the reading here, including most especially all of Laura's books.

You don't seem to fully grasp the ideas here yet. For instance, you say that only STO exists at higher levels, yet the Cassiopaeans have said that STS also exists at 6th density as a reflection for balance.

Definitely finish The Wave and read Secret History of the World, High Strangeness, and the various other esoteric works mentioned here. It does all start to make a bit more sense, as much sense as it can make while stuck in 3d STS limitation anyway.

 

[agni]

Well the reason I think that lack of physicality is a limitation is because it seems to be stated as such. I had seen that the Cassiopaeans stated that the last density where physicality is possible is the 4th density. As such, at 7th density physicality is not possible and things not possible then are a limitation.

Not necessarily, physicality can just be a "side effect" of projection of 5D, 6D & 7D on D's below. Just because it appears to lower D's as such, it can be just due to our limited perspective, not limitation of 5D and above.

 

[Beau]

Well the reason I think that lack of physicality is a limitation is because it seems to be stated as such. I had seen that the Cassiopaeans stated that the last density where physicality is possible is the 4th density. As such, at 7th density physicality is not possible and things not possible then are a limitation.

I don't think that follows logically either. If it's no longer needed/necessary, it can't be a limitation, can it? You're focusing on it "not being possible", which seems to me to be the wrong way of looking at it. If it were necessary, it would be that way but physicality above 3rd density is not necessary, it in itself is a limitation, not the other way around.

I'm looking at this as a neuron... I am... in certain ways capable of sending neurotransmitters around but I really like the knowledge of any single neuron. So even though from the neuron's point of view I seem all powerful at the micro level I'm useless and have limitations.

I'm not sure what that means but it certainly comes across as wiseacreing to me.

I have not read the Wave series in full as of yet.

You really need to read it if you want to enter in discussions like this because it lays it all out there. Read the entire series in full. Then, you will know that such questions as the one's you are asking are unnecessary.

I understand your desire to not waste effort Anart. However when struck with an intriguing idea I tend to get stuck and as I was stuck in this one I wanted to reach out for assistance. If it's believed such thoughts are irrelevant than I suppose there is a need to move on.

Reading the Wave wil assist you and help you get un-stuck.

I would also clarify that STS, it is indeed necessary but when looking at higher densities it is not there... only STO. That then would reflect STO more a property of higher densities... STS of lower densities... then begging the question of if higher densities are desired and desirable. Wouldn't it? Would then the qualities of higher densities such as STO be desirable? There is a difference between acceptance of reality and the balance... and desiring one over the other. In particular, in our current state we would then desire higher density wouldn't we?

As the C's would say, all is lessons. If it is in you to be of STS nature, then you will be where that nature takes you. I'm sure to plenty of STS entities it is highly desirable to remain exactly where they are at. That's the nature of STS, they desire physicality, and all the limitations and "gifts of being physical" that implies. You can't wish yourself to STO, whether it's 3D or 4D or higher than that. It's your actions and your being that will take you there, your "frequency resonance vibration". In fact, desiring is a form of anticipation, which is an STS act, one that limits us. Having that kind of disposition would certainly not lead to a higher, STO density. Again, this is all laid out rather clearly in The Wave so if I were you, I'd start reading that to satisfy your curiosity.

 

[benbuehne]

I think you will gain a much better understanding by catching up with the reading here, including most especially all of Laura's books.

You don't seem to fully grasp the ideas here yet. For instance, you say that only STO exists at higher levels, yet the Cassiopaeans have said that STS also exists at 6th density as a reflection for balance.

Definitely finish The Wave and read Secret History of the World, High Strangeness, and the various other esoteric works mentioned here. It does all start to make a bit more sense, as much sense as it can make while stuck in 3d STS limitation anyway.

I'm not trying to make waves with this question and don't take it the wrong way... but in regards to the Wave and in regards to Laura's books. To what degree can we take a fundamental supposition from Laura or the Cassiopaeans and question it... even ones with evidence?

For the most part I agree with much of the things in here as it shows an Amazing convergence of thought with things that I had held. Gravity tying things together... not having a speed (although having a different effect with proximity). The discussion about parallel realities merges well with string/brane theory. Still it seems when I am at a point within the material that I choose to question I'm told... just read more. I'm doing that... but what worries me is the seeming unwillingness to reverse and question. Like... "well too much is built upon this one belief so we really can't question that belief." It would seem that we would want to more rigorously test it. When a house inspector comes they check the foundation and pay less attention to what was built upon the foundation. They will tediously inspect every square inch of foundation. Why... why then... is that not done in terms of this material?

Now I'm not saying ANYTHING is necessarily wrong at this point... but it seems the questions I'm asking seem to be "wrong."... why are they wrong? Well they are wrong because they get a fundamental belief wrong. OK then... is that fundamental belief actually wrong?... and when we get there I'm told to read instead of wondering if that portion should be revisited. That seems dangerous.

Just a concern... I will go back to reading.

 

[Joe]

If it's believed such thoughts are irrelevant than I suppose there is a need to move on.

It's not that such thoughts are irrelevant, but that it is highly likely that your thoughts on this will develop as you continue to read the Wave series, at which point you'll probably have another way of looking at it and more questions, so while there's nothing wrong with you throwing out ideas as they come to you, try and remember that there's probably more details and revelations to come as you continue to read on the topic. It's like walking a road and you spy a castle far off in the distance and you can only barely make out it's shape. For sure you can stop and try and figure out more details about it, but it makes more sense not to tarry to long and push forward so that you can have a better view.

 

[benbuehne]

If it's believed such thoughts are irrelevant than I suppose there is a need to move on.

It's not that such thoughts are irrelevant, but that it is highly likely that your thoughts on this will develop as you continue to read the Wave series, at which point you'll probably have another way of looking at it and more questions, so while there's nothing wrong with you throwing out ideas as they come to you, try and remember that there's probably more details and revelations to come as you continue to read on the topic. It's like walking a road and you spy a castle far off in the distance and you can only barely make out it's shape. For sure you can stop and try and figure out more details about it, but it makes more sense not to tarry to long and push forward so that you can have a better view.

One of these, what you call, "days"... one of these questions is going to be useful! ;)

Well... forgive me... I'll keep on reading.

 

[Laura]

I'm not trying to make waves with this question and don't take it the wrong way... but in regards to the Wave and in regards to Laura's books. To what degree can we take a fundamental supposition from Laura or the Cassiopaeans and question it... even ones with evidence?

You have to read it to make any fundamental suppositions and it is evident to everyone who has responded here that you haven't done that. If you had, you would be asking different questions.

 

[Joe]

I'm not trying to make waves with this question and don't take it the wrong way... but in regards to the Wave and in regards to Laura's books. To what degree can we take a fundamental supposition from Laura or the Cassiopaeans and question it... even ones with evidence?

For the most part I agree with much of the things in here as it shows an Amazing convergence of thought with things that I had held. Gravity tying things together... not having a speed (although having a different effect with proximity). The discussion about parallel realities merges well with string/brane theory. Still it seems when I am at a point within the material that I choose to question I'm told... just read more. I'm doing that... but what worries me is the seeming unwillingness to reverse and question. Like... "well too much is built upon this one belief so we really can't question that belief." It would seem that we would want to more rigorously test it. When a house inspector comes they check the foundation and pay less attention to what was built upon the foundation. They will tediously inspect every square inch of foundation. Why... why then... is that not done in terms of this material?

Now I'm not saying ANYTHING is necessarily wrong at this point... but it seems the questions I'm asking seem to be "wrong."... why are they wrong? Well they are wrong because they get a fundamental belief wrong. OK then... is that fundamental belief actually wrong?... and when we get there I'm told to read instead of wondering if that portion should be revisited. That seems dangerous.

Just a concern... I will go back to reading.

Ben, we've already been over this. You really do need to read most of the base material before you can decide what is and is not the 'foundation'. Seriously. It's just due diligence.

 

[benbuehne]

If that concern... warning... does not apply... then let it not apply! :D

Like I said... I'll keep reading.

Pardon the interruption.