Overtones

2000-3-2 00:20:00

Lorraine,
Thanks for gathering that information and posting it. In particular I am sure many new members have not read the Principles of Synthesis.

Thanks for your post John. I'm sure you have brought up some items that need clarification. I want to stress that we all have freedom of speech here and I have no problem with anyone on the list disagreeing with me (or seeming to disagree). Because we are all gravitating toward the Oneness Principle, disagreements by older list members are becoming less and less frequent. This causes some new members to sometimes wonder if some of us are just robotically accepting what is said without thinking about it.

I submit that nothing can be farther from the truth. I believe we have gathered together a very intelligent and independent thinking bunch and I often sense when I write that if I were to drift out of the soul that many of you would instantly have an alarm go off in your head and call me on it.

Even when I am in the soul and writing on a principle I know to be true, yet out of the mainstream thought, I sense that some of my old friends sometimes wonder if I have temporarily went off the deep end this time. I also feel that because these teachings have generally passed the censorship of your souls in the past, that you sometimes give me the benefit of the doubt with the idea that everything will come together and make sense when the whole presentation has been made.

I know, for instance, that I said something a few weeks ago that sounded an alarm in Rick's head and he questioned me on it. Now we can't get a more founding member here than our friend Rick, for he started the list. Nevertheless, as the discussion proceeded I believe he made sense of the teachings and we moved on.

I know some of you have felt as if you have to pinch yourself once in a while because you have found yourself agreeing, as you have never done in the past. So long as you are in harmony because of soul contact this is indeed a positive and not a negative experience.

I find little to disagree with in John's post - I just think we need to apply the Law of Correspondences with accuracy and we should agree.

The first clarification that seems to have a need of presentation is a better definition. It appears that some believe that to have a correspondence means that the higher must contain all the elements and attributes of the lower, but not the other way around. This idea is not taught by any of the masters or inspired works that I am aware of. Let me give a definition here that seems to harmonize (correspond) with the ancient wisdom.

The Law of Correspondences:

As one proceeds from the lower to the higher, or the higher to the lower, there will be similarities between the various levels. Of particular note are levels that correspond to a higher or lower octave. By projecting possible correspondences in connection with reason and intuition one can discern probable realities in the unseen areas either in the higher or lower levels. Because of the Snowflake Principle (discussed earlier) no two levels are exactly the same, but similarities will always give clues to higher knowledge.

With the human being the lower octave is the atom. The animal is only one note below man on the scale and thus the correspondences between man and the animal are not so pronounced as those between man and the atom. If man is middle C then the higher animals are the note B just below C. B does not correspond to Middle C nearly as much as lower C. Thus according to this law we can discover more about the next steps in the evolution of humanity by exploring the atoms and their relationship with each other than we ever can by the study of animals.

Another reason that the Law of Correspondences is of little use in relating the animals to humans is that neither of us are close to the end of our evolution whereas in the atomic world relative perfection has been reached. A proton for example has a projected life span of a trillion years, or perhaps forever according to some scientists. An extremely high degree of perfection has to be reached to remain in an unchangeable state for that period of time. The life of an atom is not so long, but many of them are expected to live billions of years without change and when they do change they do not die, but fuse and change form. That's pretty close to relative perfection also.

Now an animal may live ten years and the human 75 indicating that our perfection is not yet even close to the atomic world, especially when we correspond time, for one second here would be like millions of years there.

On the other hand, the higher octave of man would be an entire solar system, but with a large time difference. A heartbeat of the planet earth is like about 25,000 years, but the heartbeat of a solar system could be millions of human years. Thus, from its time reference, the life of a solar system would correspond to the life of a human.

In yesterday's post I put out a challenge as follows: "Someone said that the Law of Correspondences applies from the higher to the lower, but not from the lower to the higher. I submit that this idea is founded on illusion and an illustration in proven reality cannot be produced."

To this John replies:
"Let's use a familiar instrument like a piano. Let's say that we walk up to that piano and strike the key which produces the note, middle C. What may not be readily known to many is that the note "middle C", when it is sounded, does not only produce the pure tone, middle C, but also an entire series of tones above it which are called overtones. This is a measurable and quantifiable fact in proven reality. And within this series of overtones, what will also be produced will be the higher C that JJ mentions. Yet, if we were to walk up to that same piano and strike the key which produces that higher C, it too would produce a series of "overtones" above it, but it would NOT produce the lower note, middle C.

"So that although the one note, middle C, can be said to contain the resonance of the higher C, that same higher C would NOT contain the resonance of the lower "middle C. Similarly, when we consider that God is the basis, or "bass note", of all creation, when we "know God", or "hear the bass note", we can in fact with some training, "hear the resonance of God in the 'overtones' of ALL creation". But to say that we can "know God", or "hear the bass note", by listening to one or more of those "overtones" within the creation, even if it is a pure octave, or a perfect reflection of that same bass note in another octave (humans for instance), THIS in fact would be an illusion, or at best, an inaccurate use of the law of correspondence."

JJ:
What you have just written beautifully illustrates the Law of Correspondences in both directions. One of the overtones in Middle C is the Higher Octave of C which vibrates at twice the rate of middle C. Interestingly, the main vibration of Higher C corresponds to the overtone of the Middle C.

Thus by using the Law of Correspondences we can examine Middle C and discover the C overtone of the lower C as well as the actual vibration of the lower C which will be at half the rate of Middle C. With the knowledge you have just stated we can go up or down and discover in advance what we are to find in vibration by the use of this law.

Now Rick just added some more interesting corresponding knowledge that maybe neither of us knew. That is it has been discovered that there are something like lower overtones in the higher notes. This would make the correspondences in music and sound even more precise than expected. In fact the foundation of the Law of Correspondences lies in the science of sound.

I do not have time to comment on the rest of John's post but hope to do so soon.

Zina writes:
"After singing the Song and automatically thinking of those I include in healing focus... quite out of the blue I saw a hazy pyramid, and then saw the golden square... saw the doorways... was looking and really not thinking...

"Today in trying to get to Samu's archives I landed on the NJ meditation instead, started reading it, and realized that was what I was looking at this morning... odd that it didn't mean much at the time... I am happy just to observe in meditation often.

"So I am curious JJ, would you define this as observing NJ in the astral level or does it sit on a higher level of consciousness? What become the indicators... since it was not a spectacularly clear 'vision' yet contained color and detail with a certain haziness (which I don't usually see... I usually see very clearly)... is this my created thoughtform of NJ... won't we all share the same thoughtform to meet there in NJ?"

JJ:
The New Jerusalem has the seeds of its existence in the formless worlds where it is an idea in the mind of God and from thence is reflected into the mental plane and then down to the astral realm. I would guess that the reason it appeared fuzzy is that your attention was hovering between two planes.

Remember when Jesus told the disciples that he would prepare a place for them in the mansions of his father? Not only can a Master prepare a place in the New Jerusalem, but we can also assist in preparing our own place. Because the New Jerusalem meditation is formulated to help us be conscious creators of our "place" we will not all see exactly the same forms at first, but as the spiritual bricks are put into place our "place" will become more consistent. Even so each of us will always have power to extend our creations as well as the creations of God. We will continue with this meditation when the time is right. In the meantime some of you will know what you as an individual are supposed to do when you get there.

The current question: "There is another key word that describes the creations of God. When we examine this key, these teachings will make much more sense. What do you suppose this word is?"

No one has got the word yet. Here is another hint. Its meaning is very close to infinite and is sometimes used in place of it.