![]() |
Chapter XLI If I speak in
the tongues of men and of angels...or Jaguars...
|
|
|
Nobel Laureate, Murray Gell-Mann writes in The Quark and the Jaguar:
In the last few chapters, we have met the Jaguar. We have described a reality out of your worst nightmare. Some of you have been able to actually see the Jaguar, and some of you have smelled its "pungent scent," and some of you have covered your eyes and held your nose and have fled in terror to the safety of more congenial belief systems. These latter have concluded that the Cassiopaeans are presenting "just another of those the-world-is-damned, and only a few are gonna be saved" rants. In regard to this, let me quote Dresden James who wrote:
In either case, whether you have seen or smelled the jaguar, or have denied its existence, holding the perfumed handkerchief of well-packaged lies to your nose, I think it is time to talk a few minutes about current realities. On July 16, 1994, the information about the "project to create a new race" was given with a completion date of 13 years in the future. That would put it right around the year 2007. We should either be running for cover, or on our knees praying, right? Nice linear thought pattern. The question has been asked: If the Cassiopaeans are the "nice guys" who "serve self by serving others" that they claim, why in the world would they tell us about a reality that is so horrible? Is it their objective to create such a reality by planting it in our minds and convincing us it is real and we have no hope? Doesn't making people afraid provide a wonderful feast of fear for those nasty old 4th density STS controllers? Isn't that just what they want? And, if so, then the Cassiopaeans must be one of "them" in disguise providing them with a "feast of fear!" At the same time, when the Cassiopaeans suggest that the many sources of information or systems of belief that make you feel safe, saved, warm and fuzzy, could really be setting you up for a fall, aren't they driving us away from the REAL sources of peace and harmony in which we must have faith in the face of any other evidence?" Well, let me ask you a question: would you go hiking in the wilderness without proper clothing and equipment? If somebody told you about all the dreadful things that can happen on a hike in the woods, would it stop you from the hike? Would you be so terrorized by the prospect of encountering a bear or a snake or a jaguar that you would stay home? Or would you equip yourself properly, with both knowledge and tools, and go and enjoy your hike in safety? Well, this analogy goes only so far because, as it happens, we are already in the middle of the wilderness and there are a lot of "teachers" around who are repeatedly telling us "There's nothing out there that can harm you! If you aren't afraid, no grizzly bears or snakes will appear! And, even if they do, if you don't feel fear, they won't bother you." Well, on the occasions when just such a philosophy might seem to have worked, the survivor of the encounter is firmly convinced that it was just this quality of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" that preserved them. The only problem is, we have no way of knowing if the grizzly bear, the snake, or the jaguar declined to attack them simply because they weren't hungry at the moment, or they were distracted by other, more tasty prey. And a more compelling question is this: did they act in a manner so as to convince the experiencer that their "belief system" worked, so that they WOULD return and proclaim the gospel of faith and ignorance, thereby assuring their continued concealment? And, naturally, those who practice this philosophy and do NOT survive, have no voice at all and we never hear about them. Freud wrote that religion was:
And, of course, the Cassiopaeans have identified the essence of Service to Self as "Wishful Thinking." Now, let me propose another interpretation of what the Cassiopaeans have told us; one that is actually contained within their words for those who have "eyes to see and ears to hear." Could it just be possible that they are, as they have said, probable future selves whose reality as 6th density beings is increased in direct proportion to our level of knowledge, and subsequent APPLICATION? In other words, are we not dealing with probable futures, and the only way of determining which future we experience is to choose based on accurate knowledge of the present? Suppose that the information that the Cassiopaeans disseminate is true and we ignore it, are we then possibly subject to the very reality they tell us about? Conversely, if we accept it as true, or possibly true, and then ACT based on this information, are we not then capable changing the reality? That is, assuming that the reality is a result of mass mind non-awareness and a sort of "critical mass" of awareness can be achieved? In short, does it not seem reasonable that probable future selves, given increasing probability by the awakening of a few people, are capable of interacting in our reality to help us only because some of us accept the role of being "contact points" to receive and disseminate the information necessary to wake people up in order to CHANGE the future?
Remember the most important principles that the Cassiopaeans have given us are Free Will and Knowledge Protects. These two concepts are inseparable. The more knowledge you have, the more awareness you have; and the more awareness you have, the more Free will you have. And the only way to understand the advanced information from the Cassiopaeans that evolved as we interacted with them is to understand nonlinear dynamics and complex systems. [Ark speculates: one day we will have a smart gadget that will allow us to measure the 'level of awareness'. Then the term "the more awareness you have" will have a technical meaning, like blood pressure, cholesterol level or (less precise) IQ quotient....] First of all, it is important to note that the law of Free Will contains within it the explicit condition of non-linearity. And for those who wish to take issue with my remarks here, claiming that the Cassiopaeans have said that we are controlled by 4th density STS, and therefore this implies that there is no free will, keep in mind that we have as much free will in relation to 4th density as 2nd density creatures have in relation to us. The more awareness of 3rd density beings the 2nd density creature obtains, the more likely it is to avoid being captured and eaten. So, let's not get sidetracked into tetraphyloctomy on that point. [A term coined by Umberto Eco in Foucault's Pendulum; means "the art of splitting a hair four ways.] Implicit in non-linearity is the fact that the future is, as the Cassiopaeans have said a thousand times, if they have said it once: OPEN. Not only is it open, it is multiple in probability. In their own words, there is an uncountable infinity of "quasi-quantum propensities." Even if they often oppose one another, belief in reductionism and mechanism go hand in hand with religious faith. God or Darwin are in heaven and "all is right with the world." Phenomena are orderly and everything can be explained with some sort of cause and effect scheme represented by differential equations. Either God started things at some point in space/time, to follow a single linear path, at which point He will bring it to an end, saving some people and not others, according to "survival of the fittest" in terms of who has obeyed his commands; or everything began with the Big Bang and has followed the linear path of evolutionary "survival of the fittest" in terms of Natural Selection. Same song, different verse. Newton introduced us to these ideas through his famous laws of motion which relate the rates of change of momentum to various forces. Very quickly science, and religion, came to rely on linear differential equations. Phenomena such as the flight of a baseball or the end of the world, (which necessitates the damning of certain souls on a particular trajectory, and the saving of others), could be described by differential equations. You throw the ball a certain way with a certain force, and there are certain conditions, and it will land at a specified place. If you have faith in a certain system, and hold firm to that faith, or conversely, deny that faith, you will end up in heaven or hell; or you will die in a pole shift, or be translated to the great new pie-in-the-sky. In such systems, small changes produce small effects and large effects are obtained by summing up many small changes. This reductionist thinking held sway over nearly all the world until the 1970s when mathematical advances and the advent of the high-speed computer enabled scientists to probe the complex interior of nonlinear equations. (Note: the new trend started earlier, in 1950s in Los Alamos, with simulations of Fermi-Ulam-Pasta model on the then state-of-the-art computer Maniac 1!) Nonlinear equations are "math from the Twilight Zone" where the normal mathematical landscape can suddenly become an alternate reality. In nonlinear equations, a small change in one variable can have a disproportionate impact on other variables. This can be catastrophic or serendipitous. Now, the Cassiopaean material that explicates these things, that I am in the process of trying to present, will be offered in due time, and in context. But, in direct response to the many attempts to block this presentation, I am taking a shorter route here by explaining this in advance of presenting the material itself. It seems that is has not been without some sort of definite "plan" and "mission" in the "mind" of the Cassiopaeans that my husband Ark, was, before coming to America, heading a division of nonlinear dynamics and complex systems. It might even be deduced by the reader that there was an essential need for the participation of a physicist of exactly his background in this "project" or "mission." It might even be further conjectured that he and I both were aware of this plan prior to incarnating and that our different pathways, brought together by the direct intervention of the Cassiopaeans, were necessary experiences set up by our "future selves" in order to prepare the ground, as it were, for the seeds that are now bearing fruit in this present series. But, we will come to that later. Getting back to nonlinear systems: nonlinear equations can be used to model the way an earthquake erupts when two tectonic plates shove against one another, building up irregular pressure along a fault line. The equation can show how, for decades this jagged pressure mounts as the subsurface topography squeezes closer until in the very next millimeter of movement a critical value is encountered. At this value, the pressure pops suddenly and one plate slips, riding up on the other and everything shakes, rattles and rolls in the aftershocks of instabilities. Sure gives new meaning to the expression "The straw that broke the camel's back!" Now, while scientists can model how such complex events manifest, they cannot predict exactly where or when the next quake will happen. This is because in the nonlinear world - which includes most of the real world - long term prediction is both practically and theoretically impossible. Nonlinearity dashes the reductionist dream of science, and an open future dashes the dream of the faithful in standard religions and philosophies based on prophecy and determinism. By crunching different numbers in the nonlinear equations, systems theory scientists are able to model the effects of various policies and strategies on such things as the evolution of cities, the growth of a corporation, firing of neurons, photon emissions, the economy, and so on. Using nonlinear models, it is even possible to locate potential critical pressure points in such systems. At these critical points, a small change can have a tremendous impact. The teachings of the Cassiopaeans are based on a nonlinear, complex, self-referencing and self-organizing cosmos. That is to say, when they answer our questions at any given moment, the answers are exactly correct for that moment in space time; that "branch of the universe" in which the question is asked. However, that information, if it is utilized, changes the complex system via a process of "back-propagation" or "feedback," and the universe can branch and change in a nonlinear way. That this HAS happened will become evident as I proceed with the narrative. And maybe it has happened more than once, depending on our actions, or feedback into the system. What kind of feedback, you ask? Nonlinear equations include feedback in the terms. These are terms which repeatedly multiply by themselves. But, there are two types of feedback. An example of a simple feedback loop is the thermostat in your home. The room cools down below a certain temperature set on the thermostat. The thermostat responds by switching on the heatpump, which then heats up the room. As the room warms up to the set temperature, the thermostat signals the heat pump to shut down. The action of the thermostat affects the heat pump and the activity of the heat pump affects the thermostat. The thermostat and heat pump are bound in what is technically called a negative feedback loop. Negative feedback loops have been in used since as early as 250 BC when they were used to regulate the height of water in water clocks. In the 1930s, feedback loops were used to model the relationship between predators and prey. In the 1950s, scientists (mainly in cybernetics and control theory) began to take conscious note of feedback loops other than the negative kind. Positive feedback, for example. The ear splitting screech you hear in a PA system is an example of positive feedback. (Yeah, I know, that sounds weird because there is nothing positive about those noises, for sure!) But what it means is that output from the PA amplifier is picked up by the mike and looped back into the amplifier where it is then emitted by the speakers in greatly amplified volume. The chaotic sound is the result of the output of one stage of the process adding to the input in another stage of the process. So, calling it "positive" just means it "amplifies," just as negative feedback is a system of control. Think carefully about these two systems of "feedback." These two types of feedback are everywhere in our world. And nonlinearity is everywhere a potential. If you think about our reality in terms of "feedback loops," you can see how it might be possible to "control" us by pumping a measured amount of "heat" or "teachings" into the system when it gets too cool when people begin to get restless and ask questions. This has been the state for millennia. Each time human beings have begun to awaken, it could be likened to the room becoming too cool. The control system then adds some heat in the form of a new variation on the old teachings that serve to "stabilize" the system. As soon as enough "heat" has been added, the "feeding" shuts down. We will come back to some practical examples of negative feedback loops in terms of standard religions of the past, and the new religion of the "alien rapture theory" soon. Positive feedback loops are a bit more problematical, and are the stuff of nonlinear dynamics. The key to positive feedback in terms that we are concerned with relates directly to the teachings of the Cassiopaeans. Their communications could be likened to the output from an amplifier - Us in the Future/Present - which is picked up by the microphone or "Us in the Past/Present" - which is then looped back into the amplifier - Us in the Past/Present, again- and then is emitted by the speakers in greatly amplified volume - or nonlinear change of the reality. This point is made clear in the following:
And this is an important point. Until an individual realizes that "having faith" is a form of "commanding," they have no hope of truly "asking" the universe for answers. The fiction writer, Ann Rice, gave eloquent voice to this problem:
To emphasize the above point, let me say that the most formidable difficulty I have found in sharing the Cassiopaean information is the fact that many people are incapable of esoteric understanding. There are many who say that they would very much like to inquire into the nature of Reality and BEing, but their curiosity is ephemeral - they are dilettantes who will only reach the portal of the Outer Circles of understanding. The fearful "Dweller on the Threshold," nowadays manifesting as Grays and Reptoids, will block their path and they will find themselves too attached to their linear modes of thinking to enter the Temple. This idea goes against the "democratic" egalitarianism of popular spiritual thinking, but the fact is:
The Cassiopaeans have said about this same matter:
So we begin to have an inkling that linear thinking must be tossed out the window and that we must turn to Nature with all the powers of both our intellect and our intuition in order to weigh and measure the forces at work here, in which we figure as points of nonlinear confluence. French mathematician Henri Poincare first blew the whistle on the "closed system" thinking of Newtonian mechanics. According to classical physics, Newtonian physics, a closed system is perfectly orderly and predictable. A pendulum in a vacuum, free of friction and air resistance, will conserve its energy. The pendulum will swing back and forth for all eternity. It will not be subject to the dissipation of entropy, which eats its way into systems by causing them to give up their energy to the surrounding environment. Planets, like pendulums, cannot be disturbed unless by outside chance, and they must be unvarying in their perambulations around the sun. But Poincare asked a question about the stability of the solar system. Why he asked this question, we do not know; but he did. And the reaction to his question was the standard linear/faith brush-off: "Of course they are stable! They've been stable for a long time. Heck, we can predict eclipses years in advance!" It was a tenet of the scientific faith that knowing the law of force and mass of the bodies, any good scientist could predict the interactions with Newton's equations. The law of force, the inverse square of the law of gravitation, was all wrapped up in a nice, neat package. But Poincare
had been doing some math on the side, and he knew that there was a small
difficulty here: for a system containing only two bodies, Newton's equations
work. For an ideal two-body system, the orbits are stable. The problem
arises when going from two to three bodies, such as including the Sun
in the equations, Newton's equations become unsolvable! For formal mathematical
reasons, the three-body equation cannot be worked out closer than an "approximation:"
Mathematically, this problem is nonlinear and nonintegrable. When you add a term to a two body system it increases the nonlinear complexity, or feedback of the system. Poincare did this, and was satisfied that a 3 body system remained pretty stable. Small perturbations, but so what? With just the Sun, the Earth and the Moon, we can sleep safely in our beds at night. Right? Wrong. What happened next was a shock. Poincare discovered that with even the very smallest perturbation, some orbits behaved in an erratic, even chaotic way. His calculations showed that a minute gravitational pull from a third body might cause a planet to wobble and weave drunkenly in its orbit and even fly out of the solar system altogether!
Poincare had discovered that chaos is the essence of the nonlinear system. He revealed that even a completely deterministic system like our solar system could do crazy things with the least provocation. The smallest effects could be magnified through positive feedback and a simple system can explode into shocking complexity. This is quite a different matter from the "negative feedback control mechanism" that controls the "temperature" of our reality. Now, let's go in a slightly different direction. For a long time matter and motion were accepted as the basis of reality and, to a great extent, continue to be. The "Big Bang" or Cosmic Firecracker theory is explained in these terms. A primal atom, (matter), of incredible density "exploded" into motion. (Where the primal atom came from, how the space it exploded into came into being, and where the impetus for this event originated, are still on the drawing board.) Nevertheless, from this purported event, our universe and the life within it just sort of "accidentally" happened. Man is the "amoral end of a deadly biological evolution." The mind and soul are inexplicable byproducts of the struggle for survival. The Bible says, "In the Beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." Neither the Bible nor science has much to say about what happened before the beginning. St. Augustine was once asked the question: "What was God doing before He created the world?" The Bishop's rejoinder: "Creating Hell for those who ask that question!" put a period to such inquiries. Few have asked it since. However, physics, the study of the deeper realities of existence, has failed to support the matter/motion theory. To the average person, a table, a chair, an orange, are real objects. They have dimension -- three, to be exact – they are real. But are they? The physicist (and the knowledgeable layperson) knows that the object is composed of atoms. And there lies the rub! The dissected atom (quantum particles) often displays some very disturbing properties. Physicist Nick Herbert writes in Quantum Reality: "Despite modern attempts to split it into finer bits, using energies a hundred billion times greater than those that hold the atom together, the electron remains steadfastly elementary. An electron, so it seems, simply doesn't have any parts." [Herbert, 1985] One experiment shows that electrons are particles - another demonstrates wave properties. The bottom line seems to be that, having pursued reality to its farthest limits within human capability, man finds that his real world is made up of particle/waves, which do not exist except as a mathematical object! Danish physicist Niels Bohr even put forth the theory that there is no deep reality! So, just what is this estate in which we find our existence? Does reality run out when it becomes invisible? Obviously not as we cannot see electricity and other forces in the universe measurable only by their effect upon "matter." Do these forces run out when they become undetectable by our senses or by our instruments? Do the things we detect with the subtle mechanisms of our mind and organs of sensation not exist simply because we cannot see or measure them? And, as Ark dared to ask in his 1994 paper, published in a peer reviewed physics journal, Annalen der Physik, (the same journal in which Einstein published his famous 1905 paper), "Who are 'we', anyway?" This is the crisis in physics and the crisis in our world, for the prevailing cosmic view in the ivory towers of physics and cosmology eventually filters down and influences our domestic, social and political patterns. But, if science has failed us, how much more so has religion! Some religions say that the only meaning to life is in having faith that our suffering is creating a better future in the afterlife or in future lives. Other religions say that the meaning to life lies in working to dissolve the ego into nothingness. One philosophy states that the true purpose of life is to align our self-created realities so that they become as one in "love and light," thereby we may achieve a unified race, which will survive beyond predicted cataclysms for a thousand years before things wind down a bit into the usual state of decay. Naturally this effect can only be initiated and maintained by a group effort to dominate the thinking of the world by bombing them all with positive thoughts. There are other ideas and combinations of ideas similar to these -- all leading where? "A religion contradicting science and a science contradicting religion are equally false." Surely there must be some way to reconcile the two! Are we, in fact, an accident of evolution in an accidental universe, on a race to nowhere except oblivion? Or, worse still, are our very minds -- our desire for knowledge -- our enemies; damning us for our lack of belief? The choice seems to be between a sick joke and a mistake -- neither of which is conducive to faith. But, help is on the way! In 1966, a man named John Stewart Bell, a theoretical physicist constructed a proof which has since become known as "Bell's Theorem." [Reprinted in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics] This theorem tells us that, if quantum theory is correct, reality must be non-local. That is to say, anything happening anywhere whatsoever in the universe, can, instantaneously affect everything else everywhere else in the universe. He demonstrated that, if we take the lesson of the quantum theory seriously, an atom's measured attributes are determined not just by events happening at the actual site of being, but by all events occurring in the entire universe simultaneously and instantly!
Notice the key word above - instantaneous. This means "superluminal" or faster than the speed of light. But, assuming that no signal can travel faster than the speed of light, this must mean that there is no actual distance separating events. Bell's theorem can be interpreted as demonstrating the idea that all that exists -- past, present, and future -- should be combined into a single entity whose farthest parts are joined in an immediate manner. In other words, the world we perceive - the stars and planets; the land and seas; the trees, animals, buildings, people - are all manifestations of a single unmitigated process.
But, we are three-dimensional, are we not? Aren't the table, the chair, the dog and the steak we had for dinner solid objects with length, depth, height and existence in time? What exactly are these objects we perceive as existing solidly in space for varying periods of time? What is the space we define as separating the objects? How are they connected in time? If physics seems to indicate to us that All is One, then what is it - what characteristic do we possess - that separates us from this deeper reality? And, what is the true nature of this reality? Space, as we perceive it, has only three dimensions; length, width, and height. We define this condition as three independent directions - that is, each measurement lies at right angles to the others simultaneously. But, again, if we take quantum theory seriously, then "our" space is merely an aspect of another space, possibly of infinite number of dimensions. If space is infinite, then it must possess an infinite number of lines perpendicular and not parallel to one another. Is infinity, then, a foolishness and does space necessarily have a limit? If it does have a limit, in what space does our space exist? Now, if space does possess an infinite number of lines perpendicular to one another, then we must ask why we can only perceive three. If we exist in a condition of mind that perceives only three dimensions, this can mean that the properties of space are created - or differentiated - by certain attributes within us. For some reason or another, the Whole is inaccessible to us. The Cassiopaeans have said that this is a choice that followed a "desire based imbalance," and that the desire was to accelerate our unification with the All. For a very long time, materialist science has recognized the existence of two important concepts, matter and motion. Matter is that which moves and motion is changes in matter.
However, Bell's theorem seems to show us that "All" simply is. Therefore, the changes must originate within ourselves! There are no comparisons we can carry over from our real world into the world of quantum mechanics, so we must just plunge in and tell it like it is. The central mystery is described in what is called the Double-slit Experiment, which goes something like this: Imagine a barrier of some sort such as a concrete wall, with two tiny holes in it. They can be elongated or round. On the one side of the wall is a screen with sensitive detectors on it which are sensitive to whatever we are going to send through the holes. On the other side of the holes is a device which shoots quantum things – photons of light, electrons, or whatever. In our everyday world we can observe how waves diffract through a wall by working with a similar setup in a tank of water. A wave-making machine sends waves toward the concrete wall. The waves pass through the two holes and set up two identical little wave patterns on the other side. The intensity of each individual wave pattern, taken alone with one or other of the holes closed off, is expressed as H2, or height (amplitude) squared. But, with both holes open, there is a very large peak intensity exactly in line with the two holes which can be expressed as I=(H+J)2. This means that the sum of the two wave intensities is not H2+J2. At the points where the two daughter wave patterns touch each other, they set up an interference pattern. So, the extra term added into the equation is the contribution due to interference and accounts for all the energy whether negative or positive. For a water tank the amplitudes are real numbers, for "quantum waves" they are complex numbers, and what is squared is the magnitude, thus interference patterns are somewhat different in the two cases, but the idea is the same. So much for waves. Now, if we take solid things, such as bullets being fired from a machine gun at the concrete walls, we would not find the interference term. We would find a lot of bullets close to one spot (some can ricochet from the interior of the hole) on the other side of each hole. Period. Now, what do you think is going to happen when we shoot quantum "things" through the holes? It is natural to believe that each individual electron or photon must go through one hole or the other, like bullets, particularly since we have slowed down our quantum gun to shoot one electron at a time. Guess again. When we block off one hole or the other, we get the usual pattern for single-hole experiments - that is, a whole bunch of electrons hit the same spot. But, when we open up both holes, we do not get the pattern we would get for bullets. We get the wave diffraction pattern. And, if we do the experiment a thousand times with only one electron released in each experiment, adding them all together we still get the wave diffraction pattern. A single electron or photon, on its way to the wall, knows whether or not the other hole is open and that it must obey the statistical laws. [Ark's note: Physicist Alfred Landé came with another idea: that it is the wall rather than electron that "knows" whether one or two holes are open, and scatters the electrons according to this "knowledge." Both interpretations are possible, the effect and the algebra of interference patterns remains the same.] When we try to observe to see which of the holes the electron goes through, we always see the electron at one hole or the other, never both at once. And, if we continue to watch, the pattern built up on our detector is exactly that as for the bullets. So, we can only conclude that the electron knows not only which hole is open, it knows if we are watching it! [Ark's note: this process of diffraction pattern formation by shooting of single electrons, their path being watched or not, can be modeled by a nonlinear quantum dynamics. Simultaneous observation of several non-commessurable physical characteristics, like, for instance, position AND velocity vectors, can lead to chaotic and fractal patterns - click here for an illustration and to download the paper] When we try to observe the electron , it collapses into a "particle", but when we are not looking, it seems that it goes through both holes. It is as though the world keeps all its options open until the very last instant of observation. So, from an array of ghost, or potential, electrons, our observation crystallizes one and collapses the wave. So what are we seeing and experiencing with our five senses? Could it be that each moment of reality is like a slice of the "All" similar to a slide on a carousel? When we look at the table, the chair, the salad and the dog, they seem to be solid and stable -- but the physicist can assure us that they are a dance of atoms ever moving into and out of being -- the atoms making up the table a minute from now being perhaps an entirely different group from the atomic constitution a moment before. So, we might say that reality is a continuous flow or invisible something passing momentarily into a focused object much like a light shining through a slide creates an image upon a screen. What is the screen? you ask. We will come to that when we discuss the nature of matter itself. But for now, let us say that the slide is our mind and the source of light is our consciousness! But the ultimate source of this consciousness is problematical, as will be seen in the following excerpt from the Cassiopaean transcripts:
If the origin of the "light of consciousness" is at 7th density, and it projects through "consciousness units," or individual perception, we come to the idea that archetypal images may be extremely important. Archetypes are the patterns of human, societal, and national interactions as conceived, and created by beings of higher densities. And, it may be that these archetypal images are viewed or perceived by those who we have come to know as prophets. In more recent times I discovered a curious reference to the above remark by the Cassiopaeans about becoming "unglued." In Ira Friedlander's book The Whirling Dervishes, he writes:
It must be noted that in Sufi terms, the "eyes of the heart" does not refer to emotion or "love" in any sense that Western minds have tended to interpret it. In fact, the term "heart" in Eastern mysticism refers more to the consciousness of the soul - awareness - than to the many corruptions of this term that pass in New Age teachings as "the way of the heart." Mansur al Hallaj has said:
And that brings us back to the remark of the Cassiopaeans:
And here the question must be asked: why have we created a world in which material extinction is a real possibility? Where has man gone wrong? Are we truly on the edge of an abyss, losing our balance, preparing to fall into a hole so deep and dark that we shall never come out of it? What is this mysterious gap between intent/desire and physical manifestation? What darkness exists in our subconscious minds that has created a world so hostile and uncaring? What power separates us from knowledge of our inner creative selves and leaves us exposed to suffering and pain? For, no matter how one defines reality - as a self-created manifestation, or as an accomplished fact thrust upon us - the reality of suffering must be seen as a consequence of this separation. And, if the world of matter is created and maintained by us, what are we doing about it that is new and different?
For millennia we have worked with the idea that pain and suffering is it a consequence of willful disobedience. If this is so, then man's being is a blight on the cosmos, and this is certainly the core belief system that is inherent in all philosophies and teachings that promote faith in this or that savior or mode of salvation. And we have to note, because our lives may depend on it, that it simply hasn't worked. If we accept that, for whatever reason, some aspect of creation has manifested the limited three dimensions in which our consciousnesses find themselves, how would we describe this condition and its potential for change?
We usually consider the past as no longer existing. The future does not exist either and the "present" refers to the momentary transition of nonexistence into nonexistence! How absurd that seems, but trying to understand it in linear terms, that's what you end up with. Physicist John Archibald Wheeler, who takes the lesson of quantum physics seriously, writes:
But, if it is true that only NOW exists, then the problem is our concept of time. We regard time as linear - long or short - an endless line - a progression from past into future. But this creates an insurmountable problem. On a line, NOW is a mathematical point of infinitesimal smallness - it has no dimension! By scientific logic, it does not exist! P.D. Ouspensky, the Russian philosopher, in Tertium Organum, illustrates this for us using the example of a snail on a journey: We know nothing about its inner life, but we may be sure that its perception is very different from ours." (Is it?) "In all probability a snail's sensations of its surroundings are very vague. It probably feels warmth, cold, light, darkness, hunger, and instinctively (i.e. incited by pleasure/pain guidance) it crawls toward the uneaten edge of the leaf it sits on, and draws away from a dead leaf. Its movements are governed by pleasure/pain. It always advances toward the one and retreats from the other. It always moves on one line, from the unpleasant towards the pleasant. And, in all probability it senses and knows nothing except this line. This line constitutes the whole of its world. All the sensations entering from the outside are sensed by the snail on this line of motion. And, these come to it out of time - from potentiality they become actuality. For a snail, the whole of our universe exists in the future and the past, i.e., in time. [Ouspensky, 1920] The snail is probably not self-aware - that is, aware that it is surging across so vast a landscape, all of which exists simultaneously, of which the snail could be aware if it were possible to expand its awareness through some process of metamorphosis and lift it high above the garden to expand its scope. But, it only perceives the various phenomena - the leaf, the grass, the twig, the sand, the walkway - at the moment it interacts with them. They are events of long or short duration, past and future, which "come to pass" as the snail inches along. In the same manner do we experience our world, our five sense organs are merely feelers by means of which we touch and interpret the world through the mathematical constructs of our brains and in the limited terms of three-dimensional consciousness. Scientific gadgetry only lengthens our feelers a bit.
The Alpha and Omega. But we do not see this - at least very few of us do - and then we only see imperfectly - "through a glass darkly." We are snails crossing the landscape of the universe, aware only momentarily of the earth, the leaf, the flower, or the raindrop before us. At any given moment we are only aware of a small fragment of the universe and we continue to deny the existence of everything else – namely the coexistent past and future and the possibility of perceiving it. The Cassiopaeans refer to it as a state in which a person merges densities, or traverses densities. It is the merging of physical reality and ethereal reality, which involves thought form versus physicality. In other words, "superluminal communication" with the self in the future.
There are two main theories of the future – that of a predestined future and that of a free future. The theory of predestination asserts that every future event is the result of past events and if we know all the past then we could know all the future. The idea of a free future is based on quantum "probabilities". The future is either only partially determined or undetermined because of the varied interactions possible at any given point.
This idea of "free will" says that quite deliberate volitional acts may bring about a subsequent change in events. Those who support predestination say that so-called "voluntary" actions are, in fact, not but are rather the results of incompletely understood causes which have made them imperative acts - in short, nothing is accidental. On the one hand we have "cold predestination" come what may, nothing can be changed - on the other hand we have a reality which is only a point on some sort of needle named the present surrounded on all sides by the Gulf of Nonexistence - a world which is born and dies every moment. Ouspensky unifies these views: At every given moment all the future of the world is predestined and existing, but it is predestined conditionally, i.e., there must be one or another future in accordance with the direction of events of the given moment, if no new factor comes in. And a new factor can come in only from the side of consciousness and the will resulting from it. [ibid.] In other words, the snail can choose to change his direction by overcoming his instinctive urge for pleasure and avoidance of pain. But this can only come about by becoming aware of the probable course he is on. If his natural tendencies are leading him to an abyss which will plunge him into a blazing inferno below, then it would behoove him to learn exactly what it is he must do to avoid it. In the past, what is behind us, lies not only in what was, but also in what could have been. In the same way, in the future lies not only what will be but also what may be. [Ibid.]
All exists simultaneously - it is only we who, singly and collectively, can change the focus of our consciousness. And we can only make this change if we have objective awareness of the true state of our reality. Now we must ask the question: Why can we not perceive reality as it is? Why can we not enlarge our perception -- why are we chained in this painful existence we call "reality"? Can our consciousness get beyond the conditions of three dimensions without fundamental alterations in material existence? How long can we sustain it there? In order to live in that state of expanded consciousness is it necessary for the fundamental nature of our individual reality to change dramatically? I believe it is. Quantum theory may demonstrate that all that exists, past, present, and future, is combined into a single entity whose farthest parts are joined in an immediate manner. No field mechanism is required for this oneness. Perhaps this entity carries The Wave. But, as the Cassiopaeans have pointed out:
What is of particular interest in the above discussion of The Wave is the fact that different "sources" of information apparently come from "different focus points" on the Wave. Putting that together with the idea of Perpendicular Realities, or the connection of certain human beings with The Wave in an interactive way, or "merging," as well as the idea of archetypes as "slides" through which the Consciousness of 7th density projects itself into consciousness units, we come to the idea the Cassiopaeans mentioned above, which is that "the whole populace will play individual roles according to their individual frequencies." This must mean that each individual is a manifestation of the frequency with which they connect to The Wave. The study of wave motion is a precise science and all waves follow the same fundamental rules, which are clearly demonstrable both practically and mathematically. One of these rules states that a wave takes its character from what is doing the waving. Also, waves go through exactly determined cycles, which have "phases" which can be known or estimated. Since this is the case, what we perceive as reality is nothing more than the myriad oscillations of the Primeval Waveform, or 7th density. It is implied in physics that a wave usually have a waver, so we may assume that our reality has a waver also. We must perceive that man is an oscillation of the Absolute and, as such, has the potential of being augmented by other wave-form expressions of energy and thus expanding, so to speak, his own awareness. Just as certain mechanical aids can augment the perception of certain ranges of light such as infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays, and radio waves, so might personal energies be synchronized by psychic means, or even, at the very deepest level, move into phase with the Primal Wave itself! This is what I believe happens during mystical states of being which bring about enlightenment or during which information is received from Higher Sources. This brings us to ask the question: Who or what is doing the waving? The descriptions of the greater reality beyond time and space are, of necessity, beyond words. In many instances, the individual receiving such information indicates the impossibility of explaining what they have experienced. So, I think we can assume that the finite nature of our physical brains, is self-limiting in a certain sense. But they can certainly do much, much more than what we consider to be normal at present. The brain is an instrument devised to focus reality in mathematical constructs - interpreting waveforms as material objects. The abilities of certain individuals to achieve such higher states of consciousness in the realms of physiological science is being documented by fantastic examples every day. We should understand that these abilities may extend even into the realms of perceiving the motions of the vast Universal Wave in other ways. These individuals might be able to perceive the effects of other waveforms and, depending upon the amplitudes and energies, predict the outcomes of certain motions, even, perhaps, in very precise terms based upon the direction which consciousness is taking. The new research in physics sounds provocatively like ancient mystical teachings yet I believe that the true nature of the reality behind our world is beyond quantum mechanics and field theory. We may find that much truth was known by the peoples of the past and that they did, in fact, express deep, mysterious, realities in their poetic and obscure messages. Mystics and seers perceive quantum-like states, which are demonstrably difficult to translate into language. Additionally, with the passage of time and changes in word usage, we find a very great barrier to understanding. There are numerous instances in literature and history when individuals have claimed to have achieved just such an "elevation" of consciousness - at least for periods of time. There is much information pertaining to how this state may be achieved - which, in gene |