The basics of existence/being never change. For example, the number of densities and their respective curricula (lessons) never change. But no experience is "repeated" as a replica (like "copy & paste"). 7D is "infinite potentiality", which also means continuous creation/novelty (in all densities). So, I think there's a balance between constancy and change.
The Endless Mystery of Existence Itself
- Thread starter axj
- Start date
I was thinking about this phrase just recently when I sat down for a remote viewing session. I experienced this. We are one little part of the whole and when we tune into the Mind of God, Divine Consciousness, the Information Field, In the Now, we have access to it all. Awesome.
axj
The Living Force
If all the infinite cycles occur right now, then there is no "before" at all. But in that case there is also no change, the infinity of everything just sort of statically exists in the now?
But can true neverending infinity be "static" and unchanging at all? Isn't infinity by its nature always bringing something new and isn't that neverending novelty a sort of constant supply of change?
But can true neverending infinity be "static" and unchanging at all? Isn't infinity by its nature always bringing something new and isn't that neverending novelty a sort of constant supply of change?
axj
The Living Force
Is there time and change at all at the most fundamental level of existence?
I have always wondered if there was a way to "sing the song of creation" by following a number sequence.
For all infinity (0), there is one (1) grand cycle combining two (2) sides whose allegiance is determined by the context (3) in which they express themselves.
The One splits into two parts, so there are now three parts (STO, STS, and their container: the One) which together give birth to free will, i.e. the context (or the universal judge, if you will) that interprets every possible action (whether STO or STS).
Mathematically, it also fits: 0 + 1 + 2 = 3.
But how do we continue?
4 = 2 x 2 = 2^2 (two squared). The base (2) is reused to create a new entity.
Since the number 4 derived from the number 2 using the 'squaring' operation, it is balanced.
So, by default, creation is balanced... until it has the possibility to imbalance itself.
Therefore, there must be something special, something 'balanced' about the 'doubling' sequence 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, etc. Each number in that sequence represents a different balanced perspective! And there are infinitely many of them! So balance can manifest itself in a variety of ways. The task of gravity, the great equalizer, is to balance whatever consciousness has decided to do. There are infinite ways of reaching balance, and infinite ways of maintaining balance! The task is never-ending because consciousness always seeks new experiences, many of which can derail the natural order of things. In other words, if consciousness can open a can of worms, it will do it!
Yes, there can be one structure, and infinitely many ways of expressing it. For example, you can split an apple pie in infinitely many ways, but you'll still have the same quantity of food: an apple pie.
axj
The Living Force
If existence is a true infinity, then the "quantity" of what exists is also infinite.
However, the C's only confirmed that existence has no starting point, not that it is truly infinite in "extent" or "quantity", I think.
I also think that there cannot be a truly infinite number ways of slicing a finite object like an apple pie.
Honestly I feel like the densities are like an infinite number line. 7D is the infinity, the "end" (so to speak). You can't have an infinite number line if you don't have all the numbers along the way. And yet infinity is also greater than the sum of all the parts - no matter how many numbers you add together, infinity is always infinitely greater than the sum you get. But the parts are essential - they need to be there, or there can't be the infinity. No number can be skipped or you don't even have a number line anymore.
And then it gets weird. Like if you start at infinity, no mathematical operation can get you to any of the numbers that make it up. Infinity / infinity, infinity - infinity, the answer is always infinity. So if you are at 7D, there are no other densities - all is One, there are no "parts", there are no individual numbers. Yet paradoxically, there HAVE to be parts, or numbers, or else there can't be 7D to begin with.
So one thing I've always wondered is how 6D can become 7D, using this analogy (which may be flawed). I can understand how you can go up the number line, which I guess is like moving through the densities. But 7D seems fundamentally different from the rest of the journey so far - you have to make a quantum leap into infinity itself. It's like you can reach 1,000,000 or any big number, but reaching infinity is a completely different ball game. It just seems like everything that's not 7D pales in comparison to it, like all the numbers no matter how big pale in comparison to infinity, and are always an infinity away from it. So how can 6D be closer to infinity than 3D? It's probably because the analogy isn't accurate.
But as others have already mentioned, this and other paradoxes are probably not meant for 3D to fully understand given the limitations of our awareness, and we may have to be patient and wait for 4D or higher. I mean, us asking such questions is like a dog or a monkey trying to solve the mysteries of the universe - why should a monkey expect to have the capability to grasp the proper answer at all? Yet we humans often think that we are capable of understanding if someone was to simply tell us how things really are - because we don't see the limits of our own ability to understand the way we see a monkey's limitations. Just cuz we can ask a question doesn't always mean we can understand the answer.
In fact, the C's said we will stop asking certain questions at 4D - like they said that we wouldn't even attempt to contemplate a "beginning" to all things at that point because the concept will be non-sensical anymore. I'm sure there's lots of things that will become self-explanatory and no longer paradoxical once we are not limited by our 3D perspective. It's fun to entertain these things and have such discussions, as long as we keep in mind that we may simply have to wait for the answers to be useful or meaningful, and not be frustrated that we can't properly grasp things now.
And then it gets weird. Like if you start at infinity, no mathematical operation can get you to any of the numbers that make it up. Infinity / infinity, infinity - infinity, the answer is always infinity. So if you are at 7D, there are no other densities - all is One, there are no "parts", there are no individual numbers. Yet paradoxically, there HAVE to be parts, or numbers, or else there can't be 7D to begin with.
So one thing I've always wondered is how 6D can become 7D, using this analogy (which may be flawed). I can understand how you can go up the number line, which I guess is like moving through the densities. But 7D seems fundamentally different from the rest of the journey so far - you have to make a quantum leap into infinity itself. It's like you can reach 1,000,000 or any big number, but reaching infinity is a completely different ball game. It just seems like everything that's not 7D pales in comparison to it, like all the numbers no matter how big pale in comparison to infinity, and are always an infinity away from it. So how can 6D be closer to infinity than 3D? It's probably because the analogy isn't accurate.
But as others have already mentioned, this and other paradoxes are probably not meant for 3D to fully understand given the limitations of our awareness, and we may have to be patient and wait for 4D or higher. I mean, us asking such questions is like a dog or a monkey trying to solve the mysteries of the universe - why should a monkey expect to have the capability to grasp the proper answer at all? Yet we humans often think that we are capable of understanding if someone was to simply tell us how things really are - because we don't see the limits of our own ability to understand the way we see a monkey's limitations. Just cuz we can ask a question doesn't always mean we can understand the answer.
In fact, the C's said we will stop asking certain questions at 4D - like they said that we wouldn't even attempt to contemplate a "beginning" to all things at that point because the concept will be non-sensical anymore. I'm sure there's lots of things that will become self-explanatory and no longer paradoxical once we are not limited by our 3D perspective. It's fun to entertain these things and have such discussions, as long as we keep in mind that we may simply have to wait for the answers to be useful or meaningful, and not be frustrated that we can't properly grasp things now.
Last edited:
Sol Logos
The Living Force
That makes sense to me, the discussions on change in a timeless realm really got me thinking too. It's a fascinating paradox, and I appreciate you bringing this sequence up. It's got me pondering the nature of time, consciousness, in relation to those four worlds I brought up earlier too. I've been wondering how time in those higher densities is different from how we experience it here in 3d.
Gurdjieff, perhaps described the universe as a hierarchy of worlds too, each with its own unique characteristics. The Absolute (0), the World of Ideas (1), the Astral World (2), and finally, our familiar Physical World (3).
But even with this hierarchy, there's an underlying interconnectedness, a fifth element that binds everything and permeates all of creation. Maybe it's related to that primordial being idea, Adam Kadmon, the blueprint that holds the potential for all that we are and can be.
But, maybe it's not a linear progression, but relationship, like can be mapped out with a tetrahedron? And perhaps this blueprint, is how change happens with timelessness. Maybe it's the bridge between the eternal now and the ever-changing present, the link between the Absolute and the individual soul consciousness unit and the temporary / spatial world.
And maybe, as we expand our consciousness, we incorporate more of this blueprint and start to experience time differently. It's like our present moment becomes wider, encompassing more and more of the past and future, until it merges with that eternal now, which is all part of the every existing blueprint.
So, learning in this timeless state might not be about accumulating new knowledge, but about expanding our awareness, our present moment, until it encompasses all of time.
It's a mind-bending concept, but it makes a certain kind of sense. Anyway, just some thoughts I wanted to share. And thanks axj again for sparking this fascinating conversation!
Consider a sequence of events (let's call it them "sequence A"), some of which have occurred in the past and some of which will occur in the future. Now, imagine that you have the ability to change any event in this sequence and that doing so can, in fact, change the entire sequence to accord with principals unknown and known. If you change the sequence in such a way it becomes completely new and original (let's call it "sequence B"), the only record of the previous sequence you have is in your mind.
Now, suppose this takes place in the "expanded present". Does the fact that "sequence A" 'precededed' "sequence B" imply the existence of time? Or are they simply two distinct, interchangeable (variable) states? If you chose to 'forget' sequence A, how could A be 'first' if it no longer existed?
A big part of the problem, or so I think, is that we don't really grok the concept of a mind that can exist with no dependency on, or requirement for, materiality whatsoever. An eternal, immortal mind without the need for sleep, food, or input of any kind whatsoever. To a mind obsessed with entropy/STS, such a state of existence is utterly incomprehensible.
Yet suppose such a state of existence is, in fact, real for certain minds. The idea of 'time' becomes nonsensical and irrelevant, except as a "lesson" for minds exploring specific forms of illusion.
I don't think the C's said that, at least, not in reference to us. They did say, however:
Personally, I'm quite comfortable with this idea. I guess those who aren't are the sorts of people who want "all the knowledge of God right now" and thus wish to put themselves on the level of the Creator. Which is the very definition, passed down to us from sources modern and ancient, of hubris.C's Session 13th Nov 1999 said:
axj
The Living Force
True, they said that all lessons have already been learned by someone:
This conversation seems to imply that even though "all the lessons have already been learned by someone", all consciousness units need to learn the same lessons. Maybe the different perspective of each being is what makes "learning the same lesson" a unique experience.
And thanks for finding this quote on exactly the topics discussed here (I expanded it to include some of the previous discussion, which is also relevant):
Answers to big questions like "why anything exists" being incomprehensible to us or "infinitely more complex" than 3rd density linear thought at least seems to rule out that there is no purpose to existence.
I think that asking the big questions is not necesarily hybris, as long as we are aware of our limitations and the fact that any kind of answers or ideas we came up with must necessarily be preliminary and open to revision as we learn more.
As to "putting yourself on the level of the Creator", I see what you mean. Yet the C's also say that All is One and that we are in a way all the Creator. There is nobody "above" us:
Yes, I agree.
In the context of monotheistic philosophies, that's correct, however there's also a difference between assuming one is already at 7D while still in 3D, and recognising one's intrinsic connection to 7D while exploring a different level of reality. I think as long as that distinction is kept in mind, hubris can be avoided.
Not necessarily wrong, but I think this might also be implying "linear thinking"
Yes, there's the issue of "octaves" of densities, of musical notes, of colors, etc. But as it's explained in the sessions, it's "spherical" or "spiral", rather than a flat line. "The snake eating its tail" (the ouroboros) is an example about this, I believe.
Apparently, infinity is more about number 1 than 7:
Ra said:
I believe that 7D is actually "the first and the last" (alfa and omega) density. The sequence in which 1D denotes "matter" is used for convenience, I think, but it's not necessarily the only way of looking at it.
An interesting statement by the C's:
I'm not sure but I suppose "light" means 7D here.Session 16 November 1994 said:
Remember that 7D is "union with the One". 6D is so close to 7D. They already experience being one with entire existence to some extent:
Ra said:
As mentioned earlier, the C's say there's no duality in 5D, 6D, 7D. So, beginning from 5D, beings begin to "clearly see" that the entire being/existence is "really one". This awareness is increased much more in 6D, and it becomes absolute in 7D, and at the big bang phase of 7D, souls "actually" become one with entire existence. So, 7D is just the completion of a process of incremental awareness/being.
Last edited:
While out on my walk this morning I was thinking about all this again. Two things actually.
The first is about 5th density. I have read that once the past life review is complete, some souls that love physical materialism can't wait to jump back into the ring and start a new life. Others might take a long time before returning to 3D. But what does that even mean when the concept of time is non-existent in the upper densities? That just confounds the problem for my understanding. I assume that if one is on the path of ascending the ladder, that one will ultimately choose going into another 3D life to progress. But can you hang out in 5D indefinitely? And if there is no time then what would define indefinitely?
The second thing is this. If it is a possibility that there are an infinite amount of experiences to be had forever in our universe, and we just continually cycle through all the densities for this reason, is it possible for us at some point to traverse to another one of the infinite universes and cycle through all the densities in a different life form other than the human body?
That to me sounds interesting and MAYBE more appealing than going round and round in our current universe. Or maybe I'm just stuck on not liking 3rd density so much. Anyway, just my thoughts.
The first is about 5th density. I have read that once the past life review is complete, some souls that love physical materialism can't wait to jump back into the ring and start a new life. Others might take a long time before returning to 3D. But what does that even mean when the concept of time is non-existent in the upper densities? That just confounds the problem for my understanding. I assume that if one is on the path of ascending the ladder, that one will ultimately choose going into another 3D life to progress. But can you hang out in 5D indefinitely? And if there is no time then what would define indefinitely?
The second thing is this. If it is a possibility that there are an infinite amount of experiences to be had forever in our universe, and we just continually cycle through all the densities for this reason, is it possible for us at some point to traverse to another one of the infinite universes and cycle through all the densities in a different life form other than the human body?
That to me sounds interesting and MAYBE more appealing than going round and round in our current universe. Or maybe I'm just stuck on not liking 3rd density so much. Anyway, just my thoughts.
