Structure of 4th density is made of...

[Sirius]

Hello everyone,

For a long time I get an interesting question, it is quite complex.

Cassiopaeans said 1th, 2nd and 3rd density are stored into one universe and multible realities, something like that. In each case, they are connected. I guess, it is easy to understand (or not perhaps). Anyhow, we may look at 2th density entities like different animals. The flora and fauna.

But 4D seems to be a little different relating of its structure, matrix and complexity. Surely, these are no new words for you. But I will go farther:

How looks like the environment of 4D? Better, of what it is made, what is it? Cassiopaeans talks about something like 4D atoms, as far I may remember (acted about the difference of 3D and 4D, they said "reality").
This implies 4D didn't contain any 1-3D "substance", also no less awareness, no 1-3D existence, 4D only? Should in 4th density only stored 4D stuff thus? It could be. That means, a tree is not a tree or something else is what you thing/know/expect about it? So there are no blockades obviously to change the physicalness, because densities are not mixed on this level, to put it mildly. You are free to do anything in 4D, because there are no reasons why you cannot or how your friends say, there is no need of limitation (of material acts, not spirit obligatory).
Although, 4D can look down at 3D. My read is, it is possible. 1-3D has its own structure, 4D too. Those are different. The splitting might be necessary for soul development, to step forward towards 5D, to ethereal being. A bridge so to say.

But back to my other question: How is the environment and what is it of? Perhaps it is pure illusion, that sounds natural, self-evident, but it isn't. All, realy all is an illusion? But the basic question is, how much do you realise that and how deep you sleep yet. Anyway. What is with C's statement: The difference is reality. (Somebody could paste the part of session, if it is ready to hand). As always there could be a red thread. How I said, more illusion or less is the concept. It also might be that a 4D atom represents more trueness, plain more of 7D reality <=> less illusion.

What are your opinions about? Any ideas could help to rotate the wheel of learning by networking continues. ;D Thanks for reading my posting!

 

[PepperFritz]

My impression from the C's transcripts is that a lot of aspects of 4th-density are simply beyond our current comprehension level. So the short answer is: We'll find out when we get there!

Any ideas could help to rotate the wheel of learning....

I'm wondering whether having these questions answered would really constitute "learning", as opposed to simply satisfying your curiosity. How, specifically, do you think the information you seek would assist you and/or contribute to the 3rd-density lessons that are currently before you?

 

[combsbt]

A: Variable physicality is the key.
Q: (L) What makes the physicality variable?
A: Awareness of link between consciousness and matter.
Q: (L) What is the link between consciousness and matter?
A: Illusion.
Q: (L) What is the nature of the illusion? (T) That there isn't
any connection between consciousness and matter. It is only
an illusion that there is. It is part of the third density...
A: No. Illusion is that there is not.
Q: (L) The illusion is that there is no link between
consciousness and matter.

It seems that in 4D there is a more etheral existence with what has been repeatedly referred to as 'variable physicality'. We cannot at this point determine the structure because it seems we are not capable of understanding it yet. I would venture to say that the C's would call it's structure 'gravity'.

You can't get to 4th grade with out passing 3rd, but you don't have to know the 4th grade material to get there... you just have to pass 3rd. In light of this, speculation on the structure and boundaries of 4D may just lead you down a path of distraction and lofty thinking. I'm not saying that it could not be worthwhile as well, just that there is no way to know for sure as of now.

The glossary entry on 4th density gives a good hypothesis on the nature of 4D:
http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=74&lsel=NUM

edit: Just saw PepperFritz post. I would agree that I can't find a reason why knowing this would benefit me in any way. It may actually be detrimental.

 

[John G]

I would venture to say that the C's would call it's structure 'gravity'.

The glossary entry on 4th density gives a good hypothesis on the nature of 4D:
http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=74&lsel=NUM

The 4th inward-outward space dimension and prism references from the Cass glossay for me relate to the first link below (which references four of Ark's papers). There's a popular analogy where the expanding universe is visualized as the surface of an expanding balloon. The inside is usually considered to have no known use in the analogy but maybe it does.

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/cdomain.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html

 

[Sirius]

Surely, we cannot understand it in full scale. But some theoretical things we can. I give you an example: We might know that something like densities are exists, described by our words of course. But how they are, the means the experience of being that, comes if we have visited it anytime. I hope, you understand what i tried to explain.

We do approximate it and if we learn more and more we change ourselfs by changing our world view. More or less. I know yet, it is not important and sensefull in each case to do something like to forget the now, all around and still ask about 4D stuff. That is not learning. It is more deflection. But I realy want to know more of them (I began to ask me this since one year circa).

Not that you think, I make fun with it or just dreaming. So, to say "sit down and watch TV" is not the right answer for me. :/ But, you have not say something.

...

It sounds better that there is more eteral being, sounds logical. I have read this at some places. The foundation of all is gravity, obviously. I guess, the question is, how is it used.

At last, one question, I would like to know what you think about:
If there is a tree in 4D, because it was generated anyhow, is that tree alive? You cannot say, it is 2nd density, or maybe 4D looks down at this moment on 2nd density. I am confused. Of course, a tree is not a 4D concept. But what covers 4D reality or is it like a virtual world, compareable with dreaming? What builds 4D atoms thus? There is a gap in my comprehension currently.

 

[PepperFritz]

We do approximate it and if we learn more and more we change ourselfs by changing our world view....

You are deluding yourself. You cannot change yourself by speculating about the details of 4th-density existence. You can only change yourself by learning to SEE YOURSELF clearly and objectively, via the Work.

If there is a tree in 4D, because it was generated anyhow, is that tree alive? You cannot say, it is 2nd density, or maybe 4D looks down at this moment on 2nd density. I am confused. Of course, a tree is not a 4D concept. But what covers 4D reality or is it like a virtual world, compareable with dreaming? What builds 4D atoms thus? There is a gap in my comprehension currently.

Again, how would "comprehending" this in any way contribute to the Work and the third-density lessons that are currently before you? Please be specific.

 

[Sirius]

You are deluding yourself. You cannot change yourself by speculating about the details of 4th-density existence. You can only change yourself by learning to SEE YOURSELF clearly and objectively, via the Work.

I know what you mean. But it is not still speculating, to make some thoughts is working too. "To change" is not to say to change the very real reality which is inhabited by us. Our experiences changes our conjectures of the world. The outside is not realy changeable, it is just thought by many people.

Again, how would "comprehending" this in any way contribute to the Work and the third-density lessons that are currently before you? Please be specific.

Let me ask a counter question:
How is it to do nothing and get idle because you are only third density? Is this a reason to do only less things if you knowing well what you are? Of course, nothing should be ignored or underestimated, this is most important. Impartiality is the first step, as you said. I agree.

But I would realy like to know how 4th density is connected to 3rd and 5th density.

 

[anart]

Let me ask a counter question:

Sirius, this is not very helpful - if you're asked a question, answering it would be helpful. Ignoring it and asking a confrontational question is counterproductive and not at all appreciated.

How is it to do nothing and get idle because you are only third density?

This is a twist and an attack. No one said anything about being idle.

The point I think Pepperfritz is trying to make is that you are dreaming of things you cannot know for certain in the present, when the only way to find out these things for certain is to get there by WAKING up and stopping your dreaming. It is not up to the student to be the architect of the school and your response to Pepperfritz indicates that you do indeed have much Work to do before you can understand anything at all.

 

[PepperFritz]

But it is not still speculating, to make some thoughts is working too.

Since, as the C's remind us, we cannot know/grasp the nature of 4th density until we get there, it can only be speculation. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with being curious and wanting to satisfy your curiosity. But do not mistake it for "working" and "learning", or being in any way necessary to 3rd-density lessons. And be aware that focussing on one's "curiosity" is potentially a detrimental distraction.

Again, how would "comprehending" this in any way contribute to the Work and the third-density lessons that are currently before you? Please be specific.

Let me ask a counter question....

Since you continue to dodge and avoid the question, it is clear that you do not have an answer. If you were observing your own behaviour and reactions in this thread (i.e. doing the "Work" rather than just focussing on being "right), you could learn something important from that.

How is it to do nothing and get idle because you are only third density? Is this a reason to do only less things if you knowing well what you are?

That is manipulative twisting on your part, as I did not in any way imply that one should "do nothing" and "get idle". On the contrary -- the point is that speculation of this kind is not "do-ing", it is simply distraction, a way of avoiding Work on the self by focussing on that which is outside the self. We are not in 4th-density, we are in 3rd-density. The only thing that will contribute to our becoming 4th-density candidates is dedication to 3rd-density lessons -- which do NOT include trying to know/imagine what 4th-density existence will be like.

Impartiality is the first step, as you said. I agree.

I said nothing about "impartiality", so I do not know what you are "agreeing" with.

But I would really like to know how 4th density is connected to 3rd and 5th density.

Yes, you have made your "wants" in this area clear. But they are not to be confused with what you "need" in order to do the Work and attend to your 3rd-density lessons.

That having been said, the Cassiopaea Esoteric Glossary and the Cassiopedia, as they are very useful references that should be consulted before posing questions on the forum. Using the "Search" function at the top of the page will also lead you to threads and posts where your questions may have already been posed and answered.

 

[RyanX]

You are deluding yourself. You cannot change yourself by speculating about the details of 4th-density existence. You can only change yourself by learning to SEE YOURSELF clearly and objectively, via the Work.

I know what you mean. But it is not still speculating, to make some thoughts is working too. "To change" is not to say to change the very real reality which is inhabited by us. Our experiences changes our conjectures of the world. The outside is not realy changeable, it is just thought by many people.

Sirius,

I'm by no means an expert here, but I don't believe just "making thoughts" in any random sense is considered "Working" in the objective sense as it's discussed here.

http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/4th_Way

I assume that what you mean by "making" is actually just "having", since "making" would imply some creative force. So far, I have yet to see how what you've said here is in any way creative, it seems to be a rehash of other people's ideas along with some subjective speculation. In that sense, "making thoughts" falls entirely under the Law of Accident and thus our impression of those thoughts would be subjective by that nature. Now this sort of subjective speculation does happen here, but I think one must be careful to qualify it as such.

http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Law_of_Accident

[quote author=Cassiopedia]2) The second kind of influences are influences created OUTSIDE this life. These are influences of an esoteric nature, or esoteric influences--that is, influences that are created under different laws, although also on earth. These second kind of influences differ from the first kind in that they are CONSCIOUS in their origin. This means that they have been created consciously by conscious people for a definite purpose. Influences of the second kind are usually embodied in the form of religious systems and teachings, philosophical doctrines, works of art, etc.

These second kinds of influences are let into life for a definite purpose, and become MIXED with influences of the first kind. But it must be borne in mind that these influences are conscious only in their origin. Coming into the general vortex of life they fall under the general law of accident and begin to act MECHANICALLY, that is, they may act on a certain definite man or may not act; they may reach him or they may not. In undergoing change and distortion in life through transmission and interpretation, influences of the second kind are transformed into influences of the first kind, that is they become, as it were, merged into the influences of the first kind. [/quote]

Now, observing those thoughts to where one might ask the question "why am I thinking these things?" or "what is it internally or externally that causes me to have these thoughts?" or "what use are these thoughts to me in a practical sense?". These might be considered instances of self remembering or self observation? Again, I am no expert, but this seems to make sense.

Ryan

 

[John G]

... some thoughts is working too. ... But I would realy like to know how 4th density is connected to 3rd and 5th density.

And some thoughts are in the "fun" category. Nothing wrong with fun if you recognize it as fun and budget it as fun time. Some fun can lead to useful things but it's not something to expect. The Cs mentioned the idea of Noah building an ark just cause it seemed like something fun to do and later it turned out useful. That usefulness wasn't something to be expected beforehand. Maybe after the flood Noah could have wanted to build an even better ark. Still fun but I certainly wouldn't expect a 2nd flood.

Physics is fun. It actually did become useful for me cause I originally came here via Ark's Quantum Future site just looking for his physics. I'm here now, don't need it for that but I still have fun reading about physics. Now for Ark, physics can be useful like for labeling the scientific lies that are out there and used by the powers that be. For us non-physicists, we have to recognize it's almost totally a fun thing. Even Ark had to put his physics research on a much slower path cause of more important things that come up.

 

[Sirius]

Thank you for the answers/posts. I think it is certain not the most importent thing in the world. (I should not wasting time ) Yes, you are right, if you say, there are many greater things we cannot understand before we have understood the lessons of now. The point is, algebra is not algebra without knowing what equations are, in other words. The results will be more subjectives guessworks.

Well, it comes still up in my mind, so I have asked you.