Origin of Universe?
- Thread starter Boza48
- Start date
Hi Boza48. A belated welcome to the forum.
Based on what the Cassiopaeans have explained about the nature of the universe, there is/was no origin.
The idea of an origin contains within it the idea of linear time (a beginning, a middle and an end). Even mainstream science tells us that time, as we perceive it, is an illusion.
Now, the idea of infinity doesn’t really work very well for our minds. It’s like a type of software (an idea) that is incompatible with our hardware (how our brain and mind work and perceive).
So if this particular philosophical pursuit is not likely to bear fruit, based on the above problems, then the next level of investigation is to question oneself: why do you want to know this? What difference would it make if you had a concrete nuts-and-bolts answer? How would it change you and those around you? Do you verify the answer based on the level of trust you have in the person giving it to you, as in, if I give you the answer, or if Laura gave it, or if the Cassiopaeans gave it?
Another point is, what if you yourself were able to come up with a better answer, one that was able to account for lots of different questions and contradictions, through you doing your own research and investigation?
Laura once had an exchange with the C’s, very early on, where she was saying to them that people were wanting to do some sort of session where there were questions asked, like scientific or mathematical ones, to get quick and correct answers from the C’s, in order to ‘prove’ the C’s were who they said they were. The C’s said, what would be the point of this? If the C’s were to give ‘proofs’ of this kind, then the people who had asked the questions would then have no choice but to believe the C’s and they would lose something: they would lose their own power to pursue knowledge, lose an opportunity to become better at pursuing knowledge. And on the other hand, there would also be people who would never ‘believe’ no matter what proofs were provided.
So, I could have just said, “The C’s say there was no origin”, but would that have been satisfactory? If so, why? Could you be so invested in finding an answer to the question if you just accepted the first thing someone said? If it wasn’t satisfactory, then, what would be satisfactory, and why?
What are your thoughts about it?
Based on what the Cassiopaeans have explained about the nature of the universe, there is/was no origin.
The idea of an origin contains within it the idea of linear time (a beginning, a middle and an end). Even mainstream science tells us that time, as we perceive it, is an illusion.
Now, the idea of infinity doesn’t really work very well for our minds. It’s like a type of software (an idea) that is incompatible with our hardware (how our brain and mind work and perceive).
So if this particular philosophical pursuit is not likely to bear fruit, based on the above problems, then the next level of investigation is to question oneself: why do you want to know this? What difference would it make if you had a concrete nuts-and-bolts answer? How would it change you and those around you? Do you verify the answer based on the level of trust you have in the person giving it to you, as in, if I give you the answer, or if Laura gave it, or if the Cassiopaeans gave it?
Another point is, what if you yourself were able to come up with a better answer, one that was able to account for lots of different questions and contradictions, through you doing your own research and investigation?
Laura once had an exchange with the C’s, very early on, where she was saying to them that people were wanting to do some sort of session where there were questions asked, like scientific or mathematical ones, to get quick and correct answers from the C’s, in order to ‘prove’ the C’s were who they said they were. The C’s said, what would be the point of this? If the C’s were to give ‘proofs’ of this kind, then the people who had asked the questions would then have no choice but to believe the C’s and they would lose something: they would lose their own power to pursue knowledge, lose an opportunity to become better at pursuing knowledge. And on the other hand, there would also be people who would never ‘believe’ no matter what proofs were provided.
So, I could have just said, “The C’s say there was no origin”, but would that have been satisfactory? If so, why? Could you be so invested in finding an answer to the question if you just accepted the first thing someone said? If it wasn’t satisfactory, then, what would be satisfactory, and why?
What are your thoughts about it?
Boza48
The Force is Strong With This One
This is what Seth say about. But, if you read Datre, Elias, Seth and Ra, you may find out that They, Themself, do not have an answer. Probably, because They are part of it, as we are. So, if They can not comprehend it, how can we?
Since ideas are the building material for Universe, and they are abstract, by term, Universe is Abstract, per se.
1994-11-24
It depends on what is meant by "Origin" , "Universe" w.r.t "whom". C's clearly say it is one infinite school and it exist for "experience".
What is "experience" and how does one sense it and what are the sensory tool needed to know it.
If we take C's definition of us as a 3 D (collinear wave reading consciousness unit) with genetic body and ethereal soul that has their some sensors that perceive the reality ( surrounding or beyond).
It depends on what is meant by "Origin" , "Universe" w.r.t "whom". C's clearly say it is one infinite school and it exist for "experience".
What is "experience" and how does one sense it and what are the sensory tool needed to know it.
If we take C's definition of us as a 3 D (collinear wave reading consciousness unit) with genetic body and ethereal soul that has their some sensors that perceive the reality ( surrounding or beyond).
- If we consider Planet as surrounding: We know it is born out of accretion forces of solar system birth. ( 4 Billion years ago).
- With Genetic body and sensors, the firmware ( hardware and the basic software needed to run that hardware )is tweaked in Orion labs and placed here on the planet 309K years back and constantly modified, replenished, planted by 4D STS . When 5D soul decides to come into 3D body, it comes with its own blue print, sensors, lesson profiles to use the genetic body and its firmware for its own purpose. This 5D soul is always there however faint it is.
- If one considers Origin in terms of time as we measure currently: Planet 4 billion years,
- w.r.t livable space - continents constantly churning up ( splitting/combining, raising/downing in ware) to the point our linear time is literally meaningless. -see the latest session.
- In 3D , one conscious unit can't change surrounding, but as one goes up the ladder, the ability to change the universe increases dramatically. But the surrounding also have conscious units with their own free will that can't abridged. That basically means one continue to create their own surroundings/universes according to their "needs" according to balancing needs of that environment
The fact that the question "what is the origin of the universe" produces an impossible paradox for human minds, strongly suggests, to me, that that question cannot be answered or understood by human minds, at least 3D human minds. Same goes for all other questions that provoke such paradoxes.
Last edited:
I would even say, how would we be able to evaluate an answer to such a question? Our minds can play with these things endlessly and comparing one version to the next but it will be more an exercise in mental gymnastics similar to the discussions in the past about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Who is even to say that there is an origin of the universe, which to our 3D way of thinking is hard to contemplate. No beginning, no end.
Boza48
The Force is Strong With This One
Abstract or not, this is the only reality we know.
But, school, lessons.... these are our 3D terms.
We are given the illusion of physical life to do whatever we want.
So, both STS and STO are given chance to evolve.
Some will, some will not.
It is as it is.
The very word Origin seems to say (Orion Gen) = Ori Gen.
What an incredible statement from the Cassiopaeans that (there is no origin) Cosmic consciousness always has all the infinite expressions of colors and forms, the immortal song of speech and sound, the eternal and glorious life united with the wondrous creatures the planets galaxies and the indefinable indescribable and transdefinable immortalizing the eternal present.
Nević Nenad
The Living Force
It is very abstract question for our minds. It is hard to imagine that everything happens "at once", and at the same time doesnt happening at all. Even more hard to imagine that everything (and everyone) is a part of universe and at the same time the whole universe itself. Which brings me to philosophical construct that the only thing that really do exist IS Universe. Everything else is just its experiences.
Maybe it would be more fun to speculate (and that is all we can do), if we turn the question upside down, so: Is Universe the origin?
Maybe it would be more fun to speculate (and that is all we can do), if we turn the question upside down, so: Is Universe the origin?
