Theos-Talk Archives (September 2009 Message tt00049)

Hi Leon,

I hope this doesn't confuse the issue, but here goes:

So when the cosmos is at rest in pralaya, it in fact, is not at rest but kept in equilibrium by the angular or angle of the force rays acting upon the static zero point, so at rest really means continuous spinning.  The zero point is not static at all but spinning and at such high velocity that it could appear to be motionless or static?

If I am right, you are saying that "will" produces this change from pure consciousness into kosmic consciousness which has seven layers of manifestation.  I guess it would by necessity have to be layered manifested consciousness else we would be back to pure unadulterated absolute consciousness which can only reflect experience but cannot create experience in that state.   'Will' then must be some sort of 'karmic force', inherent in the zero point that can no longer be contained within it's own modus operandi?   Like a kid that ate too much pudding and exploded his stomach!  lol  

Cass 

>
>From: Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@aol.com>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tuesday, 8 September, 2009 2:25:11 PM
>Subject: Re: Theos-World Zero Point - Leon
>
>  
>Cass,
>
>I don't think you are too far off the mark...
>
>But, at the primal beginning of each cycle of manifestation, the 
>cosmos is in a state of rest -- which consists of its laya point of 
>pure consciousness (of absolute space) spinning in an angular 
>momentum of force rays that correspond to the total potential mass- 
>energy of each level of the past and future seven fold fractal 
>involved manifest fields of cosmic consciousness.
>
>It's this laya point that Einstein called the "singularity" prior to 
>the birth of the spacetime continuum... And that the "new science" of 
>today sees as being in the center of every black-hole (now called a 
>"black-white whole" by Nassim Haramein) as well as in every zero- 
>point in total holographic spacetime. (Incidentally, Haramein's 
>theory is the closest science has come to verifying the ABC model as 
>well as HPB's metaphysics) .
>
>THerefore, we might think of this cosmic singularity, or primal 
>dimensionless atom of "abstract motion", as the "God particle" that 
>is the "seven robed mother" of the Book of Dzyan -- whose still zero- 
>point center of pure consciousness is the "father"... And, as HPB 
>pointed out, is the primal state of "absolute space" that contains 
>the rootless root of both spirit or consciousness, and matter or mass- 
>energy. So, where's the need for an external personal God creator 
>when the cosmos is its own creator, sustainer, destroyer or Brahma, 
>Vishnu, Shiva (Kether, Binah, Chochma)?
>
>Thus, the inherent consciousness at the primal beginning of our 
>present cosmic cycle of manifestation, is the triggering intent of 
>will that wakes up and initiates the emanation and radiation of the 
>manifest cosmos and all its fractal involved energy fields -- which 
>are governed solely by the laws of cycles inherent in original spin 
>momentum, after the release of the reactive nature of karma -- like a 
>compressed coil spring explosively expanding when the latch holding 
>is down is slid open. That's why science calls it the "big 
>bang" (and, now, considers each galaxy as starting with an analogous 
>little big bang.)
>
>Since the only eternal unchanging reality is that zero-point of pure 
>consciousness -- that's why the ever changing manifest cosmos
>and all the evolving forms in it, are considered as temporary 
>illusions or Maya.
>
>For a closer view of this concept check out my new blog, "How It All 
>Began" at:
>http://dzyanmaster. wordpress. com/
>and compare it with the theories of Haramein at his web site and in 
>his video lectures at:
>http://www.thereson anceproject. org/
>http://www.youtube. com/watch? 
>v=pPgII_4ciFU& feature=PlayList &p=88EDD1895A2F5 587&index= 0&playnext= 1
>or http://tinyurl. com/haramein
>
>Leon
>
>On Sep 7, 2009, at 9/7/098:12 PM, Cass Silva wrote:
>
>> Leon,
>> This is in response to a poster who struggles with the idea of a 
>> godcreated universe. Am I on the right track?
>> Cass
>>
>> Can I propose that this primeval particle was a combination of 
>> matter and energy? As matter is unable to be destroyed only 
>> changed, could this zero mass reach a point that its constitution 
>> in static equilibrium could no longer be contained and that change 
>> was the inevitable result of an inherent force acting upon itself?
>>
>> This then suggests that matter and energy are in a constant state 
>> of flux (albeit over billions and billions of years) from static to 
>> energetic and that expansion and contraction are a result or an 
>> effect of changing interacting forces.
>>
>> This then takes god out of the zero point and replaces god with 
>> 'force'. A force that is subject to its own laws?
>>
>> Cass
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _ 
>> ____________
>> Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail.
>> Learn more: http://au.overview. mail.yahoo. com/
>>
>>
>> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


      __________________________________________________________________________________
Find local businesses and services in your area with Yahoo!7 Local.
Get started: http://local.yahoo.com.au

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]