Life-Form's Continuum: Is Planet Earth Alive?
(Must Life, itself, have form?)
According to the ancient Lemurian Magi, to qualify for the term animated life-form (possessed of both, The LifeForce and The MindForce), at least for animated life as we humans classify it, the life form in question must meet the following:
To qualify for the term non-animated life-form (possessed of The LifeForce, but not The MindForce), again, by the classification of Man, a creation must be able to duplicate itself, either from within or by some other means; and, it must go through constant changes which may or may not be observed over time by the animated life-forms. It matters not if the observer resides upon said non-animated life-form (such as on an asteroid) or nearby said non-animated life-form (such as upon a nearby planet).
Example: While a rock is possessed of the LifeForce, it is not possessed of MindForce, as are insects and mammals; again, while the planet Earth does duplicate itself (it is capable of repairing itself by using laws which we do not yet fully understand) or otherwise exhibit the properties of animated life (it changes its face to meet the needs of the seasons, and it changes itself to meet the global needs), it does not bear its duplication within an egg, nor does it bear its duplication live (however, since we are limited to observing the planet's surface, we have no way to determine if Earth-type planets exist in some other part of the universe. Since Earth exists within the universe, so would its duplications, if there were any... and we would not know of them).
Some who are limited in their thinking processes would have us believe that planet Earth's duplication is achieved by the process of its life-type--it regenerates itself via recycling rather than regenerating itself via duplication.
We are now face-to-face with a key point of the power struggle debate (is Planet Earth alive) that has existed since Lemuria's great war between the aspiring scientists and the reigning spiritualists (this war was the beginning of the destruction, and then finally, the sinking of the lost land of Lemuria).
The aspiring scientists thought that while both, the planet Earth and the TwinSpecies:human are said to be alive, the form which the life takes is different--one is said to be animated while the other is not.
The reigning spiritualists refused to accept such a limited point of view. The reigning spiritualists recognized the limitations of the scientists' observations and rejected them. The reigning spiritualists, many of whom were in psychic contact with the great force of MindForce, saw planet Earth as having all the qualifications of an animated life-form, albeit a much misunderstood life-form.
Let us look a little closer at the differences between the aspiring scientists and the reigning spiritualists, to see if time has cleared away some of the dust that clouded the understanding of one of the two groups.
1. A creation must be able to duplicate itself from within, either sexually using another of its kind, or asexually by using its own energy;
Since we of today are limited to observing only the planet's surface and the nearby space within which the planet exists, and, since the planet does exist within the carbon Universe, and, since we of Earth know not the extent of the laws which govern the creation of planets, and thereby the method of the duplication of planets beyond the visual effects of gravity, we have no way to determine if Earth indeed duplicates itself via the laws which govern a life-form's duplication of itself within the carbon Universe, as a whole. Our present-day scientists tell us that indeed, there are other Earth-type planets that must exist in some other part of the universe. Mayhaps more time is needed for Man to understand the extent of the creative nature of the carbon Universe.
If we were to look at the planet upon which we live a little closer and compare its patterns with the patterns seen in a human body, how much imagination would be required to notice that the similarities are more important than the differences (it is the similarities that exist between them that govern the nature of the life-form's animation and not the difference that exists between them).
Specifically, when a human body is said to be dead, that now dead body still has matter that is said to be not animated. So, too, seeming dead matter can also be found on the surface of the Earth--rocks and sand. Still, could it be that planet Mars replicates Man's dead body's pattern?... Still, while that dead body was alive, did it not have loose rocks and sand upon its surface... a rose by another name is still a rose?... instead of loose rocks and sand, do we call them dead skin and stuff?... does the presence of dead skin and stuff upon the surface of Man's body prevent Man from being an animated life-form?... if it does not, then why does the presence of loose rock and sand upon the surface of Earth prevent it from being an animated life-form? Perhaps it is our arrogance that is getting in the way?
2. A creation must be able to repair itself via some type of growth or replacement that comes from within, using only its natural energy, and following its own set of laws (the laws being used need not be understood by observers).
Admittedly, this requirement is more difficult to deal with because of the present-day definition of the word growth; and, because of the limits that are placed upon the need for self-repair. We know that both, the Earth's surface and the body's surface are created by following the same pattern--that which lies deep within slowly rises to the surface to replace what has worn off. It is not so obvious that the need for self-repair depends upon the depth of the wound.
As an example, the crust that forms the body of the Earth's surface is much thicker than the crust that forms the body of Man's surface. Again, how much imagination is required to recognize that we are speaking of the same pattern that is being referred to by two labels--the crust of the earth and a body's layers of skin. If the crust of Earth is damaged such that the mantle is uncovered, the mantle will rise to fill or to cover the damage. Likewise, if a body's skin is damaged such that its mantle is uncovered, its mantle will also rise to fill or to cover the damage.
Again, how much imagination is required to recognize that we are again using two labels to have reference to the same pattern--the mantle. In one life-form we call its regenerative aspects a mantle, because it is the fluid form of its crust. In the human body, we do not call it a mantle, we call it by the process that is occurring rather than the fluid that fills the wound--a scab will form that will, in time, heal the wound. Is there really a difference between the two processes?... is not the pattern the same?
When an animated human body is damaged, a scab composed of different fluids either fills or covers the damaged area, then the fluids solidify and change until the damage no longer exists... until the wound is healed. When the same process exists for Earth, we say a plug is formed to heal... to block the fissure. Again, how much imagination is required to recognize that when a life-form's mantle flows to the surface, that life-form is said to be bleeding?
3. A creation must either bear its duplication via some type of egg, or by bearing its duplication live, as do mammals.
This was a heated point of reference between the aspiring scientists and the reigning spiritualists of ancient Lemuria. The aspiring scientists insisted upon including this limitation in the list of requirements for a life-form to be animated. The reigning spiritualists rejected this limitation because they believed it placed limitations upon the powers of creation, itself. They believed that creation has its own limitations which may or may not duplicate the seeming limitations placed upon it by one or more of its creations. The reigning spiritualists' point of debate stated that: the fruit cannot demand the limits of the tree that bore it.
4. A creation must be capable of some level of rational or irrational but independent thinking type process.
There are, at the very least, four different points of contention to this requirement. They are as follows:
It has long since been agreed that the word rational depends upon the over all acceptance of the governing political structure of the times; and, is therefore, in a state of constant flux. As such, this part of contention can be dismissed, as it is equal on both sides of the debate.
Again, it has been established by the demands of time and the burden of wisdom that the limits of being irrational will depend upon not the presence or the absence of difference but the degree or the amount of difference from the established order of the times. Basically, while every political structure accepts some rebellion... some difference within its numbers, this difference... this rebellion against the standard, against the accepted norm must not be allowed to stray too far without a punishment of some kind. When the object of this punishment does not accept this punishment, levels of war come into being. In Lemuria's case, the entire landmass was destroyed. We must remember that when language freely breaks down, all that is left to govern the situation is emotion. And, with emotion in control, agreements or solutions are not possible.
Again, we can dismiss this aspect because it is equal on both sides of the debate.
With reference to the next point of contention, the limits assigned to independence and the standard applied can only be assumed to be modifiable by the true level of understanding of the laws that govern the placing of limits upon the laws which govern a life-form's true nature (the understanding that is necessary must, of necessity, come from a much higher level of life than we of The Earth Experience can experience in our normal everyday processes. To have this level of understanding requires a psychic connection to MindForce, itself). On the average, we humans, being within the Grand Maya called The Earth Experience, cannot know these laws, since they exist outside the bubble of creation within which we live.
To be completely fair to both sides of the debate, let's judge both by the same standard--by the standard of today, as opposed to the standard that might have existed in ancient Lemuria when the debate originated. Since it is our purpose to see if the passing of time has taught us more of the original debate, as long as both sides of the debate are judged by the same standard, all will be acceptable for understanding's sake.
Firstly, using today's standards with respect to language, let us assume that each side of the debate has views which are consistent with the labels to which they have affiliated themselves. For the scientist, we can assume that they are governed by the same patterns of law which govern the scientists of today. For the reigning spiritualists, we can assume that they are governed by the same patterns of law which govern the spiritualists of today. One point, however, is that we are dismissing all the un-acceptableness that might exist in both camps of the debate--scientists can be charlatans just as spiritualists can. We must assume that all the members of both parties are honorable in their beliefs.
Since scientists only believe what they can replicate at will under scientific observation, and, since a lack of understanding of the limits of the laws which give us the ability to understand will, of necessity, preclude us from being able to replicate or to duplicate psychic-type experiences upon demand, we cannot make the determination that just be cause we cannot control it, it does not exist. As such, we can easily understand the seeming difference between the belief system of the two debating sides. Basically, one side of the debate is governed by the law: one cannot believe in what one cannot see, while the other side of the debate is governed by the law: one need not see it to believe it.
Since the ability to believe in either side of the debate depends upon which side the individual happens to align themselves within today's world, and, since the same problem still exists on both sides of the standing debate (the debate in question is if planet Earth meets the qualifications to be called an animated life-form), we can make the determination that time, with respect to this point of the debate, has taught Man nothing.
5. A creation must have some degree of the awareness process which is given by MindForce;
Again, present-day man knows not the true nature of the awareness process, much less who or what grants it. Most of today's scientists don't all agree on what consciousness is, and, the spiritualists of today are under such a dark cloud of charlatanism that it really doesn't matter what they believe. It is therefore safe to discount this point entirely.
6. A creation must be capable of some type of disturbance within it which serves the same purpose as emotions do within humans--while this disturbance need not be observable to the outside world, it must betray its existence in some way.
This is a rather difficult point to prove. We know that the surface of planet Earth moves, and, we know that Earth has an ever-changing magnetic field. We say the surface moves via earth quakes only because the plates of the Earth move--there is no one alive that can tell us why the plates move beyond science's explanation. Here, science might be suspect.
However, not even the scientists can tell us the how and the why of planet Earth's magnetic changes. How much imagination would it take for an individual to see the pattern of man's changing emotions. We know that Man's magnetics change with the change of the emotions... could it be the same for planet Earth?...
Some believe that there is a connection between an individual's emotional changes and the changes that occur in their aura. Could the same be true for planet Earth? Again, while we call the magnetic flux in a human an aura, in planet Earth we know it by The Northern Lights.
Let us, for a moment, consider the law:
Life begets life, Death begets the forgetfulness of oblivion.
This law is reminencent of a sister law:
Life feeds upon life, Death feeds upon oblivion.
Basically, the implication of the above law states that anything that lives, if it is to continue to live, must in some way gain the energy which feeds its life, either directly or indirectly, from some other living force. It cannot draw its life's energy from a nonlife force. It is not unlike two life-forms being connected by an umbilical cord.
Example: As a new-born baby receives its life's energy from its mother (a living force), via the umbilical cord that connects them, so, too, the grass, the trees, and the other life-forms that reside upon and within the Planet Earth's surface also receive their life's energy from Planet Earth, via its not-so-easy-to-recognize, umbilical cord. This very fact alone tends to sway time's judgment toward the reigning spiritualists' point of view--Planet Earth is an animated life-form... Planet Earth is alive.
It is said that each sets the limits of his own truths... that each pays homage to his own thought's desire above all other truths. It is written that when Karma seeks balance for the whole species, each must give way regardless of the truth that rules the moment. If I know and accept this as the first truth, why then do I cry so loudly when the first truth forbids me my desires of separation from the whole... Can I not separate myself from the whole, from myself?