Are more interesting astrophysical events being observed?

[rs]

I read Oahspie, a "sacred text" produced by John Ballou Newbrough through "automatic writing". My question is not to debate the veracity or usefulness of this source, but there was something that was described in the text that I found fascinating.

In the text it was stated (more or less) that whenever a star is about to go supernova, lots of "angels" gather around the star system in question to watch it happen (at relatively close range). It was implied that they do this for more or less the same reason humans go watch fireworks: its just really cool.

My question for the 'Cs' is:

Are major astrophysical events such as supernova or planetary nebula formation or black hole accretion observed by some entity by some process? It seems to me that there are an infinite variety of interesting phenomenon that our species and technology are incapable of observing. For example, what would it be like to go into a star? Is it possible for someone at whatever level of existence to observe the complete range of phenomenon for learning (or even for its sheer entertainment value as suggested by Oahspie). It would be "fun" I think, to watch a star go supernova (at close range), it would be less fun to die in the process... Certainly given our current state, death would be certain and swift. Is one of the things "we" can look forward to as we progress is the ability to more completely witness and learn in detail about a greater range of the operation of this vast and wonderful universe we inhabit?

 

[Ares]

on first glance I had a feeling this fun concept about angels watching supernovae seems very 3d centric, a little amusing actually because the author seems to assume the idea of 'fun' is same in all dimensions or for different kinds of species ? when the Cs say learning is fun, a lot of times it doesn't sound so from our perspective.

fwiw

 

[anart]

I read Oahspie, a "sacred text" produced by John Ballou Newbrough through "automatic writing". My question is not to debate the veracity or usefulness of this source

I think you've been around the forum long enough to know that's not how it works. ;) If you quote a source here, its veracity will be questioned.

but there was something that was described in the text that I found fascinating.

A lot of fiction can be fascinating.

In the text it was stated (more or less) that whenever a star is about to go supernova, lots of "angels" gather around the star system in question to watch it happen (at relatively close range). It was implied that they do this for more or less the same reason humans go watch fireworks: its just really cool.

My question for the 'Cs' is:

Are major astrophysical events such as supernova or planetary nebula formation or black hole accretion observed by some entity by some process? It seems to me that there are an infinite variety of interesting phenomenon that our species and technology are incapable of observing. For example, what would it be like to go into a star? Is it possible for someone at whatever level of existence to observe the complete range of phenomenon for learning (or even for its sheer entertainment value as suggested by Oahspie). It would be "fun" I think, to watch a star go supernova (at close range), it would be less fun to die in the process... Certainly given our current state, death would be certain and swift. Is one of the things "we" can look forward to as we progress is the ability to more completely witness and learn in detail about a greater range of the operation of this vast and wonderful universe we inhabit?

I think all of the above is an example of trying to bring down to human level and perception things that are so different from what we can imagine that it's completely futile. 'Witnessing' at higher dimensions? That could literally mean anything, since our idea of witnessing is sensory. I think even discussing it the way you are discussing it so limits the possibilities as to make the discussion completely futile. With that said, I would imagine that all sorts of things can and do happen - but I fail to see the importance of that from where we are standing right now and for what we are trying to do, which is learn all there is to learn about this reality. fwiw.

 

[rs]

I think all of the above is an example of trying to bring down to human level and perception things that are so different from what we can imagine that it's completely futile. 'Witnessing' at higher dimensions? That could literally mean anything, since our idea of witnessing is sensory. I think even discussing it the way you are discussing it so limits the possibilities as to make the discussion completely futile. With that said, I would imagine that all sorts of things can and do happen - but I fail to see the importance of that from where we are standing right now and for what we are trying to do, which is learn all there is to learn about this reality. fwiw.

I'm aware of the "3d centric nature" of the question. My point about the veracity of the source was not to digress into a discussion of whether or not Oahspie is an interesting source of fiction, but only to provide some background context to the origin of my question. The point behind my question is that I am assuming that curiosity is a general characteristic of all levels of existence, experience and species. Regardless of the unimaginableness of higher levels of being, I am again assuming that curiosity drives a pursuit for knowledge in the general case. Since the Cs constantly say "learning is fun" I also assume that "fun" (whatever that means) does not stop in other contexts.

One thing to observe about this reality is that there are many avenues of questioning that are difficult or essentially impossible to resolve. For example, what is really happening in the center of a star. The basic thrust of my question is: since as above, so below, are these limits fundamental to reality or do different levels of experience, awareness and such completely open up new avenues for curiosity?

 

[anart]

The point behind my question is that I am assuming that curiosity is a general characteristic of all levels of existence, experience and species. Regardless of the unimaginableness of higher levels of being, I am again assuming that curiosity drives a pursuit for knowledge in the general case

Then wouldn't it logically follow that everything is observed?

Since the Cs constantly say "learning is fun" I also assume that "fun" (whatever that means) does not stop in other contexts.

One thing to observe about this reality is that there are many avenues of questioning that are difficult or essentially impossible to resolve. For example, what is really happening in the center of a star. The basic thrust of my question is: since as above, so below, are these limits fundamental to reality or do different levels of experience, awareness and such completely open up new avenues for curiosity?

How could they not? Until one reaches union with The One (7th density to my understanding) all there is is lessons - so - it would naturally follow that everything is observed and learned from, in one way or another. At least this is my current understanding. I suppose my point is: of course 'interesting astronomical events' are being observed - everything is being observed in one way or another by an inconceivable 'number' of entities and limitless forms of consciousness. How could it be any other way?

 

[Laura]

I read Oahspie, a "sacred text" produced by John Ballou Newbrough through "automatic writing". My question is not to debate the veracity or usefulness of this source, but there was something that was described in the text that I found fascinating.

In the text it was stated (more or less) that whenever a star is about to go supernova, lots of "angels" gather around the star system in question to watch it happen (at relatively close range). It was implied that they do this for more or less the same reason humans go watch fireworks: its just really cool.

My question for the 'Cs' is:

Are major astrophysical events such as supernova or planetary nebula formation or black hole accretion observed by some entity by some process? It seems to me that there are an infinite variety of interesting phenomenon that our species and technology are incapable of observing. For example, what would it be like to go into a star? Is it possible for someone at whatever level of existence to observe the complete range of phenomenon for learning (or even for its sheer entertainment value as suggested by Oahspie). It would be "fun" I think, to watch a star go supernova (at close range), it would be less fun to die in the process... Certainly given our current state, death would be certain and swift. Is one of the things "we" can look forward to as we progress is the ability to more completely witness and learn in detail about a greater range of the operation of this vast and wonderful universe we inhabit?

I would say that higher density entities may, indeed, find such events very interesting AND useful. As the Cs once noted:

Q: (L) You said the other night that the Nephalim came from
some area around the constellation Scorpio, is that
correct? {referring to a session that was lost in its entirety}

A: Originally seeded there but you were too.

Q: (L) We were originally seeded somewhere else? Where?
Orion? What is the name of that planet?

A: D'Ankhiar. Ankh is ancient symbolism of this planet. Is
female symbol. Stands for mother planet.

Q: (L) Is this other planet our original home?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) What is it like back Home?

A: Spent. Cindered. Burned up.

Q: (L) So it's true, you can't go home?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Now, you said that the Nephilim were seeded on a
planet called D'Ankhiar as were human beings. When you
said we were seeded there, what did you mean.

A: Was proper environment for molecularization.

Q: (L) Are you saying that the physical bodies on planet
earth, the various types of mankind such as Neanderthal,
Cro-Magnon, Australopithicus etc., were generated on that
other planet and then brought here?

A: Yes.

I notice that this snip comes from a transcript dated exactly 17 years ago today... curious.

Anyway, more:

Q: (L) Well, you once said that it was necessary to be on a
planet that had a star that was getting ready to go
supernova in order to molecularize physical bodies. What
I want to know is: what is this process whereby thought
becomes manifest as matter?
A: This is too complicated for this medium. You need another
method. Something that allows for greater word usage.
Q: (L) But, just a clue: how does thought become matter?
A: Bilaterally.
Q: (L) What do you mean by "bilaterally?"
A: Dual emergence.
Q: (L) Emergence into what and what?
A: Not "into what and what," but rather, "from what and to
what."
Q: (L) What emerges from what?
A: The beginning emerges from the end, and vice versa.
Q: (L) And what is the beginning and what is the end?
A: Union with the One.
Q: (L) What is the One?
A: 7th density, i.e.: all that is, and is not.
Q: (L) Now, we have managed to dance around the whole thing,
and I still do not know how matter comes to be or how
time...
A: No.
Q: (L) How can I get where I want to go?
A: You have the basics.
Q: (L) Can you give me a couple more basics?
A: There are no more.

So, it seems highly likely that something valid was coming through the source you have mentioned even if the language was metaphorical. Or not.

 

[Rabelais]

For example, what is really happening in the center of a star.

If you haven't already, you might want to read Donald E. Scott's book, The Electric Sky. He has a very well reasoned hypothesis that directly addresses this question. Given what is now coming grudgingly from orthodox astrophysics and the observed data coming back from probes, there is a high probability (my opinion) that Scott is more right than wrong. This is collinear with the work of Thornhill, et al, with the Thunderbolts project, as well as Jim McCanney's work.