(07-28-2011, 12:26 AM)Raman Wrote: 1) Please differentiate between 'elliptical' and 'lenticular', then see that depending on the way you are looking at the galaxy in a 3d plane, a 'spiral' galaxy can be seen as 'lenticular' sideways (lenticular meaning bulging thing/mass at the center like shape of a lentil.).

Then do not equate 'lenticular' with 'elliptical'. 'Lenticular' represents a 3d plane, 'elliptical' could represent a 2d trajectory as well, as an example.

Quote:2) If you want to compare other channeling narratives with the Ra material, I encourage you to do some more research. Metaphysically speaking, the depth of not only the way Ra material was conducted but the incredibly intricate 'circular' agreements from beginning to end and the 'explosive' mind openings occurring at random times made this experience worth an incarnation by itself for me.

Carla Rueckert, A Channeler's Handbook Wrote:I have heard several people object when I say that it is helpful to increase one’s ability to articulate concepts and find just the right word by conscious thought. Such people have the notion that the person channeling asymptotically approaches a pure contact, with no contribution by the channel. My opinion is that about one quarter of most good channeling is contributed by the channel, both the channel’s words and experiences. This may be an incorrect view; however, the great bulk of channeled information is produced by those in a light trance, or at least those not asleep, and it seems to me that as it is impossible to eliminate the personal factor from channeling, it surely would be considered desirable by both the instrument and the one who offers the channeled material to the instrument for the instrument to have a disciplined and predictable share, obviously in the minority, but not insignificant, in the material. If you are a new channel and one of your objections to channeling is that you fear that you are channeling yourself, attempt to lessen the influence your personal thinking may have on the channeling, but-and again, this is only my opinion-do not try to eliminate it, for you are a valuable part of the channeling process.

Quote:Elliptical? I thought we were talking about spiral! LOL. Look all I am trying to say here is that maybe it was a slip. I don't see why it is such a big deal. When we have to start going into all manner of convoluted explanations to preserve the supposed infallibility of the contact, it starts to become a little absurd. Spiral, lenticular, elliptical... I don't think there is any hidden mystery for us to discern. Ra only used the word "lenticular" one time. Don used it seven times.

All this demonstrates, in my opinion, is that distortions in the query lead to distortions in the reply. If Ra stopped Don to correct every little distortion in his mind, there wouldn't be anything useful left for us to read.

Quote:Well seeing as how I have studied the Seth material, the Urantia Book, the Keys of Enoch, the Cassiopaeans, Sheldan Nidle, Matthew's Messages, Barbara Marciniak, SaLuSa, Master Hilarion, and also for several months attended in person channeling sessions with Dr. Peebles through Ann Albers, I am not sure what "more research" you would suggest.

Out of all the channeled works and messages I have encountered, the Ra material is by far one of the best. I would place Ra, the Cassiopeans, and Seth in a class unto themselves. However to operate from the assumption that the Ra contact was infallible, or that every single word in it is literally true, would be taking it too far. Even L/L Research agrees that the material is colored by the mind of the channel, so it kind of boggles my mind when somebody else comes in and tries to argue that every last minutia must be correct.

(07-28-2011, 09:20 AM)Raman Wrote: No. We are talking about elliptical in response to zenmaster's comment just a few posts above and that it was noted that people (including you) are confusing elliptical with lenticular and making that concept one and the same which is not. Nothing to do how many times Don or my grandmother uses the concept. I repeat: a spiral galaxy is lenticular if seen sideways. Also neither Don or Ra used 'elliptical'.

Quote:It is not the same category Cassiopeans and Ra or even Q'uo and Ra. Cassiopeans for me are not even a worth a second look, for example since the dynamics of the group is bitter and power based in my opinion. However, this is my opinion and you are Ok taking whatever resonates with you. It is more of a 'spiritual' research.

(07-22-2011, 07:29 AM)zenmaster Wrote: That follow-up was related to the fallibility of the stellar/galactic evolution model currently in use, and the fact that Larson suggested a more accurate model decades ago. Isn't it amazing that something can be 5 times younger than previously thought and go unnoticed? That's a 'broken' cosmology.

Quote:As far as Ra being fallible, sure. To merely put concepts to words is to necessarily, automatically become fallible. The key or art with effective communication is to reduce the chance of misunderstanding. What 'truth' can you really offer with the constraints of the channeling format, considering the biases of the reader? Each word used has a slightly different meaning and emphasis placed in the reader's mind.

(07-28-2011, 11:21 AM)Diana Wrote: My suggestion is that Ra meant that our galaxy is dualistic.

Quote:Have you ever seen the pictures that appear with one image looked at from the left, and another looked at from the right? That's called lenticular. Two images, existing simultaneously, but separated by viewpoint.

(07-27-2011, 01:44 AM)blargg Wrote: Yes words are just signposts. They're never the thing in itself.

(07-28-2011, 12:05 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Ra being Ra, obviously knew what could have been done to stop the negative contact. But they didn't offer the information. Why? Because the group didn't ask. They just kept digging their heels in on the "protection" rituals, and fussing about the appurtenances, rather than investigating the possibility that "love and light" was not sufficient to stave off such an attack. Maybe there was an element missing, the presence of which would have resulted in a different outcome. AND seeing as how we are possibly on the precipice of a major leap forward in our own consciousness, it might BEHOOVE us to consider the possibility that "love and light" is not the whole story. For example, I have noticed Q'uo to be using the word "power" more often as of late...

(07-28-2011, 12:05 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: What I have found in my personal experience is that when my mind wants to reject something out of hand or I have a knee-jerk negative emotional reaction, it is usually a sign that I am bumping up against some programming. Typically, but not in all cases, if I "push through" to the other side I find something valuable.

(07-28-2011, 12:05 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Some people read channeled material and just zoom in on the replies. Which, again, is fine. My study of channeled material takes the entire thing in context, and also considers the development of channeling techniques over time.

(07-28-2011, 12:05 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: So, for example, even if Ra was coming from a higher level than Q'uo is, the appearance of Q'uo represents an evolution of the channeling process. Q'uo makes sure to put in the disclaimer at the beginning of each session, where Ra does not. The C's represent the evolution of a certain element of conversation in the contact which is not present in other channelings. This again, represents an evolution of process, even if Ra is the wiser of the two contacts, and even if the group is totally off their rockers.

(07-28-2011, 12:05 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [Also, it seems to be easily overlooked that Ra, Q'uo, the C's, and whomever else is being channeled must know each other.]

(07-28-2011, 12:05 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Yes, of course I keep in mind the group dynamics in terms of the credibility of the information offered- including L/L Research. Some folks would rather ignore the uncomfortable facts that Don killed himself, and that Carla has debilitating health conditions, as if it is possible to divorce the group from the material. Others seem to have some kind of idea that death and sickness is some kind of noble suffering or "price" that is paid for a "pure" contact such as Ra. This is a bit twisted, in my opinion. I do not view these outcomes in any way necessary, and think it is tragic that things went down that way. If I ever develop the ability to jump timelines at will, one of my first experiments will be to see what happened on the timeline that Don did not commit suicide.

(07-28-2011, 12:05 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Ra being Ra, obviously knew what could have been done to stop the negative contact. But they didn't offer the information. Why? Because the group didn't ask.

(07-28-2011, 12:05 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Maybe there was an element missing, the presence of which would have resulted in a different outcome. AND seeing as how we are possibly on the precipice of a major leap forward in our own consciousness, it might BEHOOVE us to consider the possibility that "love and light" is not the whole story. For example, I have noticed Q'uo to be using the word "power" more often as of late...

(07-28-2011, 12:05 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: The group, bless their hearts, were doing the best they knew. BUT- it was based on a certain assumption, the premises of which were taken as sacrosant and never questioned. It kind of reminds me of episodes of Intervention when the addict is in a religious family, and they just keep praying and praying to Jesus to heal their child instead of getting them the help they actually need.

They are so hopelessly lost in their "faith" in Jesus as Savior that they are in total denial of the simple fact that their prayers are not working. Yet rather than question their methodology, they just dig their heels in and pray harder and harder. Meanwhile, the addict slips further into oblivion.

(07-28-2011, 05:43 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think Carla, Don, and Jim were quite the rubes you seem to think they were.

(07-27-2011, 01:44 AM)blargg Wrote: Yes words are just signposts. They're never the thing in itself.