Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) - View Single Post

TraineeHuman · 01-12-2010, 09:52 PM

If anybody didn’t clearly get the point of my post above regarding formlessness, let me try and make it clearer what sorts of things are formless. Any sense in which you are truly an “I”, or an “I am”, rather than a “me” is formless. Ditto any sense, or way of being, in which you are conscious rather than mechanical, or truly free rather than a slave, or a dynamic, alive spirit rather than just meat.

Eckhart Tolle, for example, continually keeps mentioning “the formless”. He works hard to make it clear in simple language that your essence is purely formless. He also explains that a person won’t really get anywhere in terms of spiritual evolution unless they keep deliberately making lots of space for the formless to come into their daily life. In my experience, all the meditation traditions do the same thing. They don’t always use the word “formless”. Other terms include “being”, “being at cause”, “intuition”, “God”, “Big Mind”, “No-mind”, and so on.

My point is that the ten-dimensional universe which the video describes contains nothing in it but objects. (Everything in that ten-dimensional universe can be identified completely in terms of ten numerical coordinates. Machine paradise!) An object is simply that which has a form. Yet I know for a fact from experience that when I travel (“astral project” in a more sophisticated way than usual) in the higher worlds, I travel without any form at all.

Maybe it would also seem plausible to you to consider that any being – including the deeper “soul” aspects of yourself – that is truly being a pure “I” rather than a “me” can’t be tied down to or captured in any one form, nor even in many different specific forms. It’s too alive, too dynamic, too “slippery”, for that.

I hope this post makes it clearer why the term “dimension” or “density” as used e.g. in The Law Of One means something different. So, if you like, the six worlds of formlessness would make up dimensions 11 through 16. And the seven divine/Heaven worlds (that I know of) would then make up dimensions 17 through 23. But then “dimension 11” would just be the beginning of “sixth density” as e.g. David Wilcock describes “sixth density” at www.divinecosmos.com It certainly would not be what David and many others mean by "eleventh density".

01-12-2010, 09:52 PM	#22
TraineeHuman Avalon Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 174	Re: Imagining the tenth dimension If anybody didn’t clearly get the point of my post above regarding formlessness, let me try and make it clearer what sorts of things are formless. Any sense in which you are truly an “I”, or an “I am”, rather than a “me” is formless. Ditto any sense, or way of being, in which you are conscious rather than mechanical, or truly free rather than a slave, or a dynamic, alive spirit rather than just meat. Eckhart Tolle, for example, continually keeps mentioning “the formless”. He works hard to make it clear in simple language that your essence is purely formless. He also explains that a person won’t really get anywhere in terms of spiritual evolution unless they keep deliberately making lots of space for the formless to come into their daily life. In my experience, all the meditation traditions do the same thing. They don’t always use the word “formless”. Other terms include “being”, “being at cause”, “intuition”, “God”, “Big Mind”, “No-mind”, and so on. My point is that the ten-dimensional universe which the video describes contains nothing in it but objects. (Everything in that ten-dimensional universe can be identified completely in terms of ten numerical coordinates. Machine paradise!) An object is simply that which has a form. Yet I know for a fact from experience that when I travel (“astral project” in a more sophisticated way than usual) in the higher worlds, I travel without any form at all. Maybe it would also seem plausible to you to consider that any being – including the deeper “soul” aspects of yourself – that is truly being a pure “I” rather than a “me” can’t be tied down to or captured in any one form, nor even in many different specific forms. It’s too alive, too dynamic, too “slippery”, for that. I hope this post makes it clearer why the term “dimension” or “density” as used e.g. in The Law Of One means something different. So, if you like, the six worlds of formlessness would make up dimensions 11 through 16. And the seven divine/Heaven worlds (that I know of) would then make up dimensions 17 through 23. But then “dimension 11” would just be the beginning of “sixth density” as e.g. David Wilcock describes “sixth density” at www.divinecosmos.com It certainly would not be what David and many others mean by "eleventh density".