Edit Content

Main Menu

Fonts of Knowledge

The site dedicated to life, liberty and the pursuit of esoteric happenings

Recommended Sites


God & Related Bothering

The Q & A

Actually, there isn’t a whole lot of interrogation of “God” here, or “All That Is” (per Seth) or Source, or Higher Self, or the Infinite Creator (per Ra) with his intelligent infinity (in whom, there is “all that there is”). I’d suggest it’s probably quite easy to intuit some moderate, even ground on the God concept without applying either the extremes of a bearded guy sitting on a cloud or the sneering dismissiveness of Richard Dawkins. 

The Seth Material offers some good fodder, however, notably in Dreams, Evolution and Value Fulfilment Volume 1, where Seth identifies the difficulty of explaining All That Is’ motivation: “I can only say that it is possessed by ‘the need’ to lovingly create from its own being”. He also furnishes an account of how it was that what we know came into existence: “You might say that the universe dreamed itself into being” through a “kind of creative tumult”. Time, in such divine emanations, is irrelevant (“The process that you might imagine took up eons occurred in the twinkling of an eye”). “God” is not a static state (looking down impassively upon his creation) but “in a certain fashion… learns as you learn, and makes adjustments according to your knowledge”. Further still, “Creation occurs in each moment, in your terms. The illusion of time itself is being created now” and “All That Is is so much a part of its creations that it is almost impossible to separate the ‘creator from the creations’, for each creation also carries indelibly within it the characteristics of its source”.

Seth has it that God’s subjective universe initially rendered him almost lost, “mentally wandering within this ever-flourishing, ever-growing interior landscape”. All That Is “contained within itself the knowledge of all existences, with their infinite probabilities” and as it imagined them “they existed in what I will call divine fact”. Knowing only itself, its thoughts “attained their own vitality” and “began to think their own thoughts”, his “subjective progeny”. That’s where the creative tumult comes in, straining for some “as of then unthought-of release”, a dream “of a freedom of objectivity”. While the created worlds are “on the one hand exterior, they are on the other also made of divine stuff”. 

Seth duly moves on to the gradual inhabiting of matter, something also covered by Edgar Cayce in not wholly dissimilar language. You can also find sub-categories of creator, or co-creator, in the Ra Material, whereby “each galaxy developed its own Logos”, one of which is “the Logos of this particular sphere or density”. Ra gives that there are “sub-Logos” also. Variations in language and emphasis can be found across these accounts, and one may find allusions that don’t quite gel (the planetary thing), but they have a general gist in common.

A significant portion of the material here has featured in other Q & As (notably The Law of One, the Seth Material, Corey Goode and Starseeds), so further information can be found on some of the relevant subjects under those posts.

For the background to the Q & A, see the index page.



Q. Is the Higher Self our ultimate/ascended state?





Q. Is the Higher Self individual to each person and also part of Source?



Higher Self is not individualised (per common understanding).

Higher Self is source (one could call this God, if one so wished).



Q. Is the Higher Self the 6D future status of the soul?



Per Ra, the Higher Self is as above, and this kind of advanced status – if not necessarily termed as density-specific – is fairly par for the course in characterising the Higher Self. The answer would appear, on the face of it, to suggest a conflict with the preceding one.

If both are true, this may mean that, functionally, there is fluent contact with/ association with Source after 6D (it would follow that this level is not individualised, at least not in the sense we are led to believe Higher Self is). Ra, of course, is speaking as a 6D “social memory complex” (“You would call it social memory complex thus indicating many-ness. To our understanding, you are speaking to an individualized portion of consciousness”).



Q. Is the only variable in the quality of information deriving from Source the strength of one’s connection to Higher Self?



That is, rather than, say an individualised Higher Self having access to less information than another individualised Higher Self.

Aside from who/what they’re channelling (ie Seth is a 5D entity, Ra a 6D social memory complex), this strength of connection would explain why readings and channellings etc can be so divergent in content.



Q. What is the best term to use for the source of this information?


This information being that of the Q & A answers. See the following:



Q. Akashic Record? 





Q. Source?





Q. Etheric Plane? 





Q. Universal Hall of Data?





Q. Cosmic Mind? 





Q. Universal Mind?



However, the best term is Higher Self.

Also acceptable is Source (not as optimal are Cosmic Mind, Universal Mind).

See above for distinctions in the definition of “Higher Self”.



Q. Is it the case that All That Is/Higher Self/Source “It knows that something else existed before Its own primary dilemma when It could not express Itself”.



Seth suggested that “All That Is knows no other. This does not mean that there may not be more to know. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like It may exist. It is not aware of them if they do exist. It is constantly searching. It knows that something else existed before Its own primary dilemma when It could not express Itself”. Obviously, it’s an assessment made within the limitations of Seth’s awareness, but one wonders if it doesn’t suggest, to some degree, the potential for an infinitely unfathomable echo chamber.



Q. Is there a difference between density and dimension?



Which isn’t to say they may not be used to mean different things by different people or entities. Certainly, Ra will mention “the seventh level or dimension” but then reference the “mid-seventh density’s last action before turning towards the allnes of the Creator”.



Q. Do non-physical realms operate in a 4D, 5D etc sense? 



Which isn’t to suggest that all densities are physical (after 6D, it seems they are not*).

*Addendum 29/03/23: This appears to be in error. Some 6D entities are physical and some are non-physical.



Q. Are they different entirely?  





Q. Such as astral?





Q. Is the most accurate word to describe the definition of “realm”: dimension/ domain/ field/ sphere/ territory/ world/ region/ place/ kingdom/ state/ zone?  


None of the above.  

Density is preferred.

This question arose when trying to define the nature of the realm beyond the Ice Wall (which, incidentally, is given as “ageless”). It inevitably throws up other questions, of course (such as, “Is ‘density’ as a description for ‘realm’ the same as density the same as ‘dimension’ when considering 3D/5D/6D etc?” It would seem not, since dimension wasn’t given as an accurate description of realm).



Q. Is the demiurge real?



Popular among the Gnostics and a reason for Luciferians to do as they will, this is the idea that our Earth is the product of a corrupt or mad demigod (the level of the demiurge’s evil vs ignorance varies with the school of thought). Depending on their founding principles, then, the goal is to get back to the true God, transcending the limitations of the evil world made flesh, or transcend creation to become god oneself (which in turn, invites such aberrations as transhumanism). 

You can find various interpretations of the Luciferian take on the demiurge, possibly a reflection of the various takes on the demiurge itself. Some identify Lucifer as the demiurge, a “light-bringer and supreme archetype rather than an evil or inferior false god”. Ben Kadosh the “first’ Luciferian, believed “in the Demiurge as the Supreme Being and Lucifer as his manifestation as the light in the darkness” (devotees of Gnosticism understandably don’t generally want to be tarred with Luciferian associations, such as Gnostic Luciferianism). This latter form of Luciferianism, inverting the creator as evil (demiurge) and the serpent (Lucifer) as good and granting gnosis (rediscovering the divine spark), is the one favoured by Jay Dyer in his movie analyses (the resulting issue being exactly that of his language generally lumping Gnosticism in with Luciferianism).

The demiurge concept also feeds into a number of variants, in terms of sublimating the physical world. For example, the holographic universe model: we’re all in a matrix. The universe isn’t real; it’s a trap, and we have to escape it (synonymous with the endless suffering of the reincarnation cycle). There are/have been limiting factors placed upon humanity’s freedom, but nothing quite so fundamentally despairing and nihilistic as this take’s entire creationary paradigm. Which makes it an excellent tool in the Dark Forces arsenal. Is it a coincidence the Nag Hammadi showed up when they did? Texts that would, coincidentally, support scientism’s growing theoretical basis for describing the Universe?



Q. Was Can You Stand the Truth? written with genuine concern the information therein was true?


Yes. The author believed this was the situation.

Can You Stand the Truth? The Chronicle of Man’s Imprisonment by Angeliki Anagnostou Kalogen is a deep dive into the fate of humanity on the basis that demiurgic conception of the Universe is a correct one.



Q. Do angels exist?



In relation to the following line of inquiry, of beings/entities, both positive and negative, I’ll note that the Seth Material disavows all notions of the same beyond the product of the creative imagination. Generally speaking, anything inviting oppositional hierarchies (“The god-versus-devil, angels-versus-demons – the gulf between animals and angels – all of these distortions are impediments”) were evidently seen by Seth as a barrier to his main message of the importance of inner work.



Q. Do we have Guardian Angels?





Q. Are Satan and Lucifer separate entities?





Q. Are/were they acting in cooperation with each other?





Q. Is Lucifer wholly negative?





Q. Is Lucifer no longer here?



That is, Lucifer is no longer “on Earth”.



Q. Is Satan wholly negative?





Q. Is Satan no longer here?



That is, Satan is no longer “on Earth”.



Q. Were Satan and Lucifer in control of demonic entities here?





Q. Can individuals be possessed by demons?





Q. Are there no demons “except as you create them out of your belief”?



The quotation comes from the Seth Material. Demons are self-initiated (thought forms). Satan can/could exert control of these demons.

This is not to dismiss the existence of other malign entities that are not thought forms, however.



Q. When did Satan and Lucifer begin to exert an influence on Earth?


Satan and Lucifer both began to exert an influence on Earth from around 18-1900 years ago.



Q. Did there need to be a sufficiently negative influence (per that of the Khazarians) for them to gain a foothold?



When this line of questioning was first pursued, the possibility that Satan was an AI had not really been entertained (while I’d read the relevant Corey Goode updates some years back, I’d largely forgotten about them). 

It appears Satan, Lucifer and Baphomet are all AIs of this type (that is, 6D negative, from an antimatter dimension or reality). Quite possibly, other such negative entities are also AIs. Corey referred the influence of “a predatory, malevolent artificial intelligence, or AI” and “this ‘ET AI’ is only considered so in our ‘Reality’ or ‘Dimension’. It does behave exactly like all other created AIs by other beings and has thus been assigned the same designation. This is not ‘Its’ originating or home ‘Reality’ or ‘Dimension’”. He also suggests the AI would be considered “quite a normal… life form” in its own “pond”. He and David Wilcock raised the idea that the AI is “referred to in various religious tests as Satan, or ‘The Adversary’”. 

It seems these AIs are 6D negative and hail from another dimension, that of antimatter (the Seth Material confirms the existence of “an infinite number of systems or universes between matter and antimatter” when discussing probable systems of reality, which is not to reduce antimatter to probability, but appears to place it on the opposite end of a spectrum).



Q. Are there humans on Earth without souls?



Very few. The figure appears to be in the region of 1 in 9-10 million.

One can find much comment and suggestion that “NPCs” (non-player characters) represent the soulless majority of humanity. While the NPC term has validity (in terms of awareness, or lack thereof) it isn’t an indication of the absence of a soul. 



Q. Does the between-lives state exist outside of time, and does it function in parallel to, or conjunction with, the physical world, where time exists?


Yes, the between lives state is outside of time. 

It is not, however, functioning in parallel. Which was my way of asking if there was a “contemporaneity” in terms of the relationship between whatever happens there and what happens here. As ever with such lines of questioning, however, scrutinising the subject begins to break down in the face of choices of language, sufficient grasping of concepts and all-round limitations of awareness. The Seth Material delves into this area, but to a degree that can tend to the abstract or obscure. 



Q. Is the Great White Brotherhood/Ascended Masters real?


Yes (to both).

The Great White Brotherhood represent a gang of post-corporeal mystics – or Ascended Masters – guiding the spiritual development of humanity. They were popular with Helena Blavatsky and the theosophists, and were also namechecked by Aleister Crowley (so we presumably shouldn’t hold that against them). Edgar Cayce also mentions the Great White Brotherhood a number of times (albeit usually in answer to questions concerning the same), including the intimation that Cayce himself was a member or messenger. This is not necessarily to credit anything in particular anyone mentioned attests to with regard to the activities of the Great White Brotherhood’s activities and/or membership. 



Q. Is loosh a thing? 



Robert Monroe – he of The Monroe Institute and remote viewing – “discovered’ on his astral travels that Earth was essentially a giant “loosh” farm, whereby higher dimensional beings feed off humanity’s (negative) emotions. This harvest can relate to both positive and negative loosh (loosh is referred to as loosh/love at points in the Monroe’s Far Journeys).

Interpretations of this concept have included The Matrix (our essences are fed upon by machines, or reptilians, or Anunnaki bloodline) and Jupiter Ascending (aliens instead of Machines), both from Illuminati stooges the Wachowskis. You can also find this in the Scream Extractor in Monsters, Inc. (which has also been analogised to adrenochrome extraction). It would appear to be the case, then, that yes, humanity’s emotional energy – suffering and joy – is fed off/has been fed off, but that shouldn’t be, per the demiurge, taken to mean this is simply the way things are and therefore nothing to worry about, as Monroe’s guide tries to tell him (if one wants to get to the bottom of who is doing what and why in such a scenario, it might be best to apply a consideration of whether such behaviour would fall under Service to Others or Service to Self). 

One might link the loosh theory to the archons, who come up in Gnostic texts; John Lash will have you believe they’re an approximation of the Greys (overseen by the Lord Archon, a reptilian form), based on his own partial translation. Lash considers the archons “mind parasites who prey on the human race”. This area (loosh/archons) merits further inquiry; an earlier – much earlier – question asked if the Dark Forces were related to archons (astral entities), which received a no, but that isn’t to say they don’t fit in into the scenario in some manner).



Q. Does karma exist?



However, it is misrepresented under Buddhism etc. Per Seth, “Karma presents the opportunity for development. It enables the individual to enlarge understanding through experience, to fill in gaps of ignorance, to do what should be done. Free will is always involved”.



Q. Is there cause and effect outside of time?



This was borne of the consideration of life reviews etc between lives, the idea of progression and movement, action and reaction, without the parameters of time as we know it. It’s something of an idle question, to a degree, since it doesn’t actually take the conversation anywhere (other perhaps, than to suggest time may focus, compress and draw out simple conditional states that are there anyway; dream and astral experiences aren’t posited on time, certainly not in the manner of the physical world).



Q. Does reincarnation generally follow a linear route? Could a soul incarnate in, say, 1920 and then in 10,000 BC?


The soul generally incarnates in linear sequence.

However, it can incarnate as described.

Obviously, there are caveats to the above, in that to a degree, all incarnations are simultaneous, ongoing, and can affect each other. The Seth Material covers this at some length, that “everything exists in the universe at one time, simultaneously… It is only your perception that is limited… There is no past, present, and future. These only appear to those who exist within three-dimensional reality… You live all of your reincarnations at once, but you find this difficult to understand within the context of three-dimensional reality… Because you are obsessed with the idea of past, present, and future, you are forced to think of reincarnations as strung out one before the other. Indeed we speak of past lives because you are used to the time sequence concept”.

In part, what I was getting at is that there has to be a “point” in the progression of the soul where it moves from being 2D to 3D to 5D (say). I was speculating whether, hypothetically, the 5D soul could incarnate in 3D in a period of history “before” it had become 5D. Or, the “first” incarnation in the Universe wouldn’t necessarily correlate to the relative “age” of the soul.

Seth further explains – which partially goes back to the cause-and-effect idea in the preceding question – that “Since all events occur at once in actuality, there is little to be gained by saying that a past event causes a present one. Past experience does not cause present experience. You are forming past, present, and future—simultaneously. Since events appear to you in sequence, this is difficult to explain”. As such, when Seth talks about past life events influencing a present one “such statements… are highly simplified to make certain points clear”.

Ian Lawton had evident problems with all this in his attempts to bash out a workable theory of the soul, seeing there being a functional problem with the simultaneous lives model and the interlife. He has attempted to distil a viable medley from the various accounts of the soul’s path/reincarnation/interlife. Consequently, he arrived at single lives as being closer to the truth than reincarnation models – so there’s no reincarnation as such – occurring on behalf of a “supersoul” collective (this seems a way for him to take on board the “oversoul” concept). The supersoul sends out many experience-gathering soul personalities; thus the soul and life personality become the same thing in his theory, removing the conventional reincarnatory aspect (they are “soul probes” sent out by the supersoul operating across all eras and realities at once).

I can see where Lawton is coming from with this – for example, the 3D to 5D aspect and “when” this happens when one looks at the soul outside of time – but there’s a cumulative sense of his getting bogged down in a cause-and-effect that I’m unsure can necessarily become clear from a 3D perspective (see Seth discussing such difficulties above). The supersoul concept reads as over-involved and complex in an area that is involved and complex enough as it is.



Q. In the outside time state, can one see all possible timelines, including ones that were physical but have been corrected?



Once a timeline is gone, it has been erased and is no longer viewable.



Q. Do (some) souls incarnate with the foreknowledge of leading negative lives? Or the challenge of not leading such paths?



This was initially asked based on a misconception (that the Draco had souls: being inherently negative, how could they then agree to positive developmental goals during a life review?) I’m including the question and answer for the sake of completeness, but I think I’ll need to return to the subject with a revised focus in mind. Having since reread the Law of One material, it’s notable that Ra talks about 5D negative souls incarnating in 3D, for example, and the inherent danger of spinning positive in orientation that comes with this territory (negative or positive orientation depending on Service to Self or Service to Others respectively). Do Elite bloodlines – on the basis that they have souls – attempt to game the reincarnatory process so they incarnate back into an Elite family? 



Q. Can simultaneous incarnations occur (in the same time period)?



Again, one to revisit in terms of how a soul would approach this (does it mean soul energy is split, or is that even a valid idea, given all incarnations happening at once, from an intra-time perspective)?



Q. Was humanity’s presence on Earth devised by ET races (via divine inspiration)?





Q. Will humans in 5D will continue to incarnate physically on Earth?



More on the ascension process can be found in the posts on the Law of One and Corey Goode. In brief, that the ascension process is a consciousness, rather than bodily shift. 



Q. Does 7D return to Source?



Or not per se.

This idea can be found in the Ra Material, where Ra suggests he will become one with all, thus having no memory, no identity, no past or future, but existing in the all” and later references “The mid-seventh density’s last action before turning towards the allness of the Creator and gaining spiritual mass”. However, one can also find reference to 8D intelligences, and Corey Goode’s Sphere Being Alliance – of whom Ra is a paid-up member – features 6-9D ETs (Ra, as previously noted, being a 6D social memory complex). Q & A answers also give densities going up to the region of 30-ish.



Q. Can humans’ investment in their pets facilitate their transition from 2D to 3D?



This idea can be found in the Ra Material, that the attention granted by 3D humans to their pets elicits a striving in the 2D animal for self-consciousness or self-awareness.



Q. Are Akashic records real?





Q. Do the Akashic records include probable realities etc? Do they on only include 3D physical plane information?



The Aksashic records give actual reality (but cross-dimensionally, so not just the physical plane).



Q. Are there probable realities, in which we follow paths we may have taken, but did not, in physical life?



The Seth Material offers the concept of probable systems of reality as part of an infinite number of systems/ universes between matter and antimatter. These do not, to my understanding, represent an analogue to the multiverse concept. There are probable pasts, probable presents and probable futures, and the probable system “is as complicated as the reincarnational one”.

More on this can be found in the post on the Seth Material, but my way of assimilating this, thus far, is to leave the stress on “probable”, however much Seth’s language tends to blur the lines at point (in terms of our “definable” status). He says “You exist in the middle of the probable system of reality” and “you are positioned in the centre of a cosmic web of probabilities that is affected by your slightest mental or emotional act”. So ours is the only one “actualised” physically (although Seth would say it still has its own actuality).



Q. Do counterparts, as described by Seth, exist?



Counterparts are “other selves who are part of our entity, developing abilities in a different way than we are here” (this takes in the idea of soulmates). These do not constitute simultaneous incarnations. Rather, they are connected through the same “oversoul” or “entity” (this is not Lawton’s supersoul, although the oversoul does feed into his concept). 

To my understanding, the oversoul is composed of individual souls, and one can join/become part of this oversoul. Ra doesn’t say nearly as much on this concept, but suggests the “oversoul” manifestation cannot be achieved in the negative) Ra gives it as occurring late 6D and equates the Higher Self with the oversoul: “the Oversoul, as you call it, or higher self, seems to exist simultaneously with the mind/body/spirit complex which it aids. This is not actually simultaneous, for the higher self is moving to the mind/body/spirit complex as needed from a position in development of the entity which would be considered in the future of this entity”). However, as I understand it, the oversoul itself does not have a “density” attached to it (and how that relates to the individual souls of which it is a part, if Ra is correct, will need to be considered further).


Most Popular

What is currently passing for knowledge around here.

  • ETs and Other Ultradimensionals Part 2
    The Q & A
    ETs and Other Ultradimensionals Part 2
  • Beyond the Ice Wall Part IV
    The Q & A
    Beyond the Ice Wall Part IV
  • The Seth Material
    The Q & A
    The Seth Material
  • Starseeds, Walk-ins & NPCs
    The Q & A
    Starseeds, Walk-ins & NPCs
  • Dark Forces VI
    The Q & A
    Dark Forces VI
  • White Hats 8
    The Q & A
    White Hats 8