+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Spiritual Development & Metaphysical Matters (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Transition to Fourth Density (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+---- Thread: Share your vision for the harvest (/showthread.php?tid=3210)
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - unity100 - 08-29-2011
(08-29-2011, 12:58 PM)Icaro Wrote: Our misunderstandings are growing. I'd like to address each point but I've learned in the past that this will only end up in pages worth of discussion which I have no desire to do. I'll re-frame my opinions.
not our misunderstandings. i have been continually repeating what i said from the start. you are doing interpretations. for example :
Quote:What is the harvest? An opening wherein an entity, if able, may vibrate in accordance with the next density and move through towards it.
harvest of 3d was defined as an event in which entities were harvested in the presence and through the energies the harvesters coming from above octave 3 times in 25,000 year cycles in a 3d period that lasts 75,000 years. on top of that, entities which were able to contact intelligent infinity through their own means in between cycles had the right to leave a 3d planet at any given time.
contact with intelligent infinity is named as 'the ticket to next octave of experience' -> meaning, 4d, if you look from 3d point. it is not a 'process in which you move through towards 4d'. otherwise it would be necessary for entities that had harvested themselves in between cycles, or the entities which got harvested in earlier cycles, to 'move through the next density'.
it doesnt happen like that. it is even explained in precise manner - in a harvest happening after death, entity is directly placed in its violet body before everything happens and its harvestability is judged. and then it moves to indigo body in order to heal, review, and decide the next locus for incarnation, wherever it may be. (a 4d planet, or anything else). this is harvest as happens in time/space after death. in the form of harvest that entity contacts infinite intelligence through its own means in incarnation, there is no 'process' either. the entity may just contact infinite intelligence over the course of a day and be over with it.
Quote:What did the planet begin to do in the 30's? 'Shift' to the next density, or rather, the 4d sphere activates. Most importantly, it was stated that the planet itself has been harvested positively.
there was no such information as 'planet harvested positively' or planets getting get harvested. this planet was told to have moved into a 4d time/space continuum due to 'recent events'. there is no requirement or mechanic that mandates activation of 4d sphere for harvest or during a harvest, as the previous cycles on this planet can make clear for you. those 150 entities contacted intelligent infinity, and were harvestable, and at any given time they could leave the planet and get harvested. DESPITE there was no 4d sphere forming, or 4d vibrations coming this or that. i dont know how it is possible to repeatedly attempt to assert 'transition' or 'shift' or '4d streamings' into harvest in the light of this info. harvest happened 2 times before on this planet, there was no 4d sphere or 4d vibrations or transition or shift.
Quote:My argument is, that the point in time during the past two cycles of the gateway opening is the same cyclical point in time that the planet began its shift currently. Not a different mechanic, just that at the end of this cycle 3d is going out of potentiation, and the fact that this transition has taken place, could be an indication of the harvest gateway being open. In other words, if we were ready in the 30's, we could have made the transition. But collectively speaking, Ra seems to be saying that up until recently that hasn't been possible, and so they say the harvest hasn't 'happened' because it isn't over with yet.
if it was so, ra would just say it. they would say 'harvest has started' or 'gates to intelligent infinity began opening' or this, or that. had the harvest required any kind of transition, they would also say that. they made clear and precise definition of happening of harvest, as i mentioned above regarding the time/space 'anomaly' that harvest introduces to death process. and in the case of during-incarnation harvestability, contact with intelligent infinity was named as the ticket, with nothing attached.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - AnthroHeart - 08-29-2011
One question about "walking the steps of light". Ra mentions "The spirit complex of each harvested entity moves along the line of light until the light grows too glaring, at which time the entity stops."
Does this mean we go till the light is no longer comfortable? Or do we take it to the point where it becomes agonizing and we can't take it any further? Or is there really not much difference between the two? Just a little over the edge of comfort becomes agonizing?
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - unity100 - 08-29-2011
light becoming too much to bear was used for 3d harvest. steps of light was used for harvest before the veil. different harvest approaches exist for different densities.
even differently, for 3d 'anomaly' harvest introduces to death, it was told that the entity was placed in violet ray body to see harvestability of entity. this doesnt seem to have anything to do with approaching light method above, or steps of light. unless the entity was put through these while in violet body.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - 3DMonkey - 08-29-2011
I consider them all the same method.
.... Also, none of us thinks there is an actual gate, right? And, I wouldn't consider that the only aspect of the material that should be taken allegorically.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - zenmaster - 08-29-2011
(08-29-2011, 10:02 AM)unity100 Wrote: polarization being based on one life is not possible. the entity cannot be isolated from the spiritual biases it gained through its journey from 1d to 3d end. these even follow the entity not only to after death, but to even other 3d planets or even 4d planet after harvest. we can conclude this from the distillation of the core of experiences after death talk in regard to physical death in 3d.
But that's not what I've been suggesting. The biases are going to be there, regardless. The particular life lessons will be in those areas that need the most work.
(08-29-2011, 10:02 AM)unity100 Wrote: so in any given incarnation, entity's entire spiritual past will be behind the scenes in its mind/spirit, and the overall state of this complex will determine the overall progress of the entity. this wouldnt be any different in time/space -> even if the entity is in time/space, its overall balance and progress at any given junction is its overall state. remembering or not remembering past lives would not change the distillations from these past lives that made into spiritual biases.Never said it would.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - unity100 - 08-29-2011
(08-29-2011, 09:40 PM)zenmaster Wrote:(08-29-2011, 10:02 AM)unity100 Wrote: polarization being based on one life is not possible. the entity cannot be isolated from the spiritual biases it gained through its journey from 1d to 3d end. these even follow the entity not only to after death, but to even other 3d planets or even 4d planet after harvest. we can conclude this from the distillation of the core of experiences after death talk in regard to physical death in 3d.
But that's not what I've been suggesting. The biases are going to be there, regardless. The particular life lessons will be in those areas that need the most work.
seems logical, however when we look at the anomaly harvest introduces to death process, a harvest after death happens immediately by being placed into violet body, and the entity goes to indigo body only after harvesatbility is gauged, and then review and decision of next incarnation happens.
it seems, review of life lessons is not necessary for harvest in time/space. this is curious.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - native - 08-29-2011
Quote:it is not a 'process in which you move through towards 4d'. otherwise it would be necessary for entities that had harvested themselves in between cycles, or the entities which got harvested in earlier cycles, to 'move through the next density'.
I know, I was being general for the sake of brevity. I understand the process of harvest itself, how it occurs after death etc. In regards to mentioning the positive harvest of the planet itself, I thought I recall Ra mentioning how the negatives were trying to dominate and garner control of the planet itself, trying to turn it into a negative locale so to speak, and that this wasn't successful.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - unity100 - 08-29-2011
(08-29-2011, 11:31 PM)Icaro Wrote: I know, I was being general for the sake of brevity. I understand the process of harvest itself, how it occurs after death etc.
there is no obligation for harvest happening after death. contact with intelligent infinity in incarnation, it seems, a more surefire harvest in regard to definite harvestability. notice, how the concept 'judging of harvestability of entity' gets into play in a harvest that happens after incarnation with entity being placed in violet ray body. there is a judgment happening there, probably by the harvesters. however, for the case of contacting intelligent infinity during incarnation, no such mentions were made. it seems, contacting intelligent infinity during incarnation is a definite proof of harvestable violet balance.
in addition, it seems the word 'harvesting' and 'harvested' seem to be used also for cases of entities being taken away from the planet or leaving - for those who harvested themselves, concept 'harvested themselves' gets used. for those who achieved infinite intelligence contact during incarnation but not died (including 150 harvestable entities and the negatives in this period) harvestable phrase is used.
reflecting back on the below quote :
http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=35&sc=1&ss=1#5
two entities are named as 'may be harvestable in negative sense'. this is, despite these entities were dead for about 40 years by then.
other entities were named as not harvested themselves, but in incarnation still.
rasputin was named as harvested himself.
it is possible that the other entities have not attained intelligent infinity contact during incarnation, as the below shows :
http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=17&sc=1&ss=1#25
it seems then, harvest concept is used as not only for infinite intelligence contact, but also the process of an entity dying, and leaving the 3d plane.
this bodes rather important conclusions for gradualist proposals, since it is said that 'all entities are harvested regardless of progress at the end of last cycle', and the two entities named from third reich were still waiting for harvest for their harvestability to be gauged during harvest. (because they apparently didnt attain intelligent infinity contact during incarnation - if they did, they would immediately leave the planet as other negatives do - which was told as a thumb rule for self-harvests of negative nature btw).
Quote:In regards to mentioning the positive harvest of the planet itself, I thought I recall Ra mentioning how the negatives were trying to dominate and garner control of the planet itself, trying to turn it into a negative locale so to speak, and that this wasn't successful.
that was not named as harvest of a planet.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - zenmaster - 08-30-2011
(08-29-2011, 10:38 PM)unity100 Wrote:This automatic movement to the true-color locus in space/time and time/space is 'the harvest'. The entity is attracted by a compelling resonance. The review is not just the life review, but the whole view and assessment of what needs balancing or healing. At the new 'frequency', with that added 'support system' the entity can determine how to make best use of the next incarnation, based on assessment of from the whole (time/space) viewpoint. Beginning 4D is much like end of 3D, you choose your new parents. But I'd imagine one would be meeting a great number of entities of foreign appearance which will soon, for the first time, have a new ape-body physiology to get used to. One question is, why did they leave their logos?(08-29-2011, 09:40 PM)zenmaster Wrote:(08-29-2011, 10:02 AM)unity100 Wrote: polarization being based on one life is not possible. the entity cannot be isolated from the spiritual biases it gained through its journey from 1d to 3d end. these even follow the entity not only to after death, but to even other 3d planets or even 4d planet after harvest. we can conclude this from the distillation of the core of experiences after death talk in regard to physical death in 3d.
But that's not what I've been suggesting. The biases are going to be there, regardless. The particular life lessons will be in those areas that need the most work.
seems logical, however when we look at the anomaly harvest introduces to death process, a harvest after death happens immediately by being placed into violet body, and the entity goes to indigo body only after harvesatbility is gauged, and then review and decision of next incarnation happens.
it seems, review of life lessons is not necessary for harvest in time/space. this is curious.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - Bring4th_Austin - 08-30-2011
(08-30-2011, 12:16 AM)zenmaster Wrote: But I'd imagine one would be meeting a great number of entities of foreign appearance which will soon, for the first time, have a new ape-body physiology to get used to. One question is, why did they leave their logos?
Do you think that there would be some sort of "logoic compatibility" regarded in concerns to their 4D placement? Maybe a good lot of them have experience bipedal physiology similar to our's because their Logos wasn't a far shot from ours'.
And I'd imagine they left their logos because of the early cycles. Their planet was not yet ready to move to 4D, but they were part of the first or second cycle harvest, so they had to be put somewhere else for 4D.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - zenmaster - 08-30-2011
(08-30-2011, 12:31 AM)abridgetoofar Wrote:I'm sure the 'propriety' would be there, as there is apparently a lot of info and opportunity assessment available in time/space. Like tends to attract like. However, the incoming numbers must be huge, which would necessitate more far-reaching systems. How this plays out as far as 'cultural diversity' and new ways of thinking about things.(08-30-2011, 12:16 AM)zenmaster Wrote: But I'd imagine one would be meeting a great number of entities of foreign appearance which will soon, for the first time, have a new ape-body physiology to get used to. One question is, why did they leave their logos?
Do you think that there would be some sort of "logoic compatibility" regarded in concerns to their 4D placement? Maybe a good lot of them have experience bipedal physiology similar to our's because their Logos wasn't a far shot from ours'.
(08-30-2011, 12:31 AM)abridgetoofar Wrote: And I'd imagine they left their logos because of the early cycles. Their planet was not yet ready to move to 4D, but they were part of the first or second cycle harvest, so they had to be put somewhere else for 4D.That would seem to account for a good percentage.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - Bring4th_Austin - 08-30-2011
(08-30-2011, 01:27 AM)zenmaster Wrote: However, the incoming numbers must be huge, which would necessitate more far-reaching systems. How this plays out as far as 'cultural diversity' and new ways of thinking about things.
Hmm, that to me is a lot more exciting than the idea of harvest itself. And it also suggests that moving forward, even if the actual harvest is gradual, a huge variety of exciting changes and new ways of thinking will be popping up everywhere regardless, more and more as we move forward.
Exciting! What a cool time to be in incarnation.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - native - 08-30-2011
(08-29-2011, 04:38 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: .... Also, none of us thinks there is an actual gate, right? And, I wouldn't consider that the only aspect of the material that should be taken allegorically.As in one that swings on hinges? No hehe. But there is some kind of local 'opening' related to the rhythms that formed our planet itself..mentioned in 9.3.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - unity100 - 08-30-2011
(08-30-2011, 12:16 AM)zenmaster Wrote:(08-29-2011, 10:38 PM)unity100 Wrote:This automatic movement to the true-color locus in space/time and time/space is 'the harvest'. The entity is attracted by a compelling resonance. The review is not just the life review, but the whole view and assessment of what needs balancing or healing. At the new 'frequency', with that added 'support system' the entity can determine how to make best use of the next incarnation, based on assessment of from the whole (time/space) viewpoint. Beginning 4D is much like end of 3D, you choose your new parents. But I'd imagine one would be meeting a great number of entities of foreign appearance which will soon, for the first time, have a new ape-body physiology to get used to. One question is, why did they leave their logos?(08-29-2011, 09:40 PM)zenmaster Wrote:(08-29-2011, 10:02 AM)unity100 Wrote: polarization being based on one life is not possible. the entity cannot be isolated from the spiritual biases it gained through its journey from 1d to 3d end. these even follow the entity not only to after death, but to even other 3d planets or even 4d planet after harvest. we can conclude this from the distillation of the core of experiences after death talk in regard to physical death in 3d.
But that's not what I've been suggesting. The biases are going to be there, regardless. The particular life lessons will be in those areas that need the most work.
seems logical, however when we look at the anomaly harvest introduces to death process, a harvest after death happens immediately by being placed into violet body, and the entity goes to indigo body only after harvesatbility is gauged, and then review and decision of next incarnation happens.
it seems, review of life lessons is not necessary for harvest in time/space. this is curious.
im at a loss to even see the basis of what you are saying above. it is clearly said that during harvest the entity is immediately placed into violet body upon death. no kind of review happens. if it was a 'grand review' like you interpret, there wouldnt be a need to again be placed into indigo and review and decide for incarnation.
..................
i want to reiterate the below post to emphasize some newfound pointers :
(08-29-2011, 11:49 PM)unity100 Wrote:(08-29-2011, 11:31 PM)Icaro Wrote: I know, I was being general for the sake of brevity. I understand the process of harvest itself, how it occurs after death etc.
there is no obligation for harvest happening after death. contact with intelligent infinity in incarnation, it seems, a more surefire harvest in regard to definite harvestability. notice, how the concept 'judging of harvestability of entity' gets into play in a harvest that happens after incarnation with entity being placed in violet ray body. there is a judgment happening there, probably by the harvesters. however, for the case of contacting intelligent infinity during incarnation, no such mentions were made. it seems, contacting intelligent infinity during incarnation is a definite proof of harvestable violet balance.
in addition, it seems the word 'harvesting' and 'harvested' seem to be used also for cases of entities being taken away from the planet or leaving - for those who harvested themselves, concept 'harvested themselves' gets used. for those who achieved infinite intelligence contact during incarnation but not died (including 150 harvestable entities and the negatives in this period) harvestable phrase is used.
reflecting back on the below quote :
http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=35&sc=1&ss=1#5
two entities are named as 'may be harvestable in negative sense'. this is, despite these entities were dead for about 40 years by then.
other entities were named as not harvested themselves, but in incarnation still.
rasputin was named as harvested himself.
it is possible that the other entities have not attained intelligent infinity contact during incarnation, as the below shows :
http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=17&sc=1&ss=1#25
it seems then, harvest concept is used as not only for infinite intelligence contact, but also the process of an entity dying, and leaving the 3d plane.
this bodes rather important conclusions for gradualist proposals, since it is said that 'all entities are harvested regardless of progress at the end of last cycle', and the two entities named from third reich were still waiting for harvest for their harvestability to be gauged during harvest. (because they apparently didnt attain intelligent infinity contact during incarnation - if they did, they would immediately leave the planet as other negatives do - which was told as a thumb rule for self-harvests of negative nature By the way).
Quote:In regards to mentioning the positive harvest of the planet itself, I thought I recall Ra mentioning how the negatives were trying to dominate and garner control of the planet itself, trying to turn it into a negative locale so to speak, and that this wasn't successful.
that was not named as harvest of a planet.
'may be harvestable negatively' wordage is used for goering and himmler. and some other number of entities in incarnation. both goering, and himller were dead circa 1981. with the 'gradual harvest that started with green vibrations' and so on proposition, or, 'harvest is transition to 4d' proposition, these entities should have been named as harvested, or, in the process of being harvested by 1981.
instead they are named as possibly harvestable. the others too. this tells us that harvest is not something that is related to 'transition into 4d vibration', or, something that is gradual and started before 1981.
we also understand that these entities did not contact intelligent infinity. otherwise, they would be named as harvestable or, in their case since they would immediately choose to leave the planet through death, harvested.
instead, they were apparently waiting for harvest circa 1981.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - 3DMonkey - 08-30-2011
(08-30-2011, 10:29 AM)Icaro Wrote:(08-29-2011, 04:38 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: .... Also, none of us thinks there is an actual gate, right? And, I wouldn't consider that the only aspect of the material that should be taken allegorically.As in one that swings on hinges? No hehe. But there is some kind of local 'opening' related to the rhythms that formed our planet itself..mentioned in 9.3.
Yes. "kind of opening" is an entirely abstract idea. As is "the indigo body" an abstract idea in 51.10. As is the idea of a "color". As is the idea of inner light, of Polaris, in 54.26. Even the "entering" of time/space is allegory for an abstract idea applied to space/time, here/now.
Frankly, the more I study the LOO, the more it becomes abstract with very little literal information.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - Tenet Nosce - 08-30-2011
(08-30-2011, 11:00 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: Frankly, the more I study the LOO, the more it becomes abstract with very little literal information.
3DMonkey, have you considered the possibility that your mental insistence on the most mundane possible explanation might be related to why you never have any really cool paranormal experiences?
3DMonkey Wrote:Anyway, I'm jealous. I've experienced nothing like any of this. Zilch.
Just sayin'...
3DMonkey Wrote:"kind of opening" is an entirely abstract idea.
The "opening" or the "gate" is inside you. Just like everything else of this nature, if the entity lacks sufficient awareness then when the gate opens, they may hallucinate an external gate or portal to pass through- or whatever other perceived scenario is acceptable to their consciousness.
This is the "subjective" portion of the event that I think some people keep referring to. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an actual, literal, physical and energetic change occurring that would be consistently observed by an onlooker watching the whole thing go down from afar with the proper state of consciousness and scientific framework from which to interpret events.
I don't want to bombard this thread with a bunch of scientific article links, but here are a handful of them each with a little piece of how something like this could even be possible. Notice how this is all coming out now, at the last minute:
New depiction of light could boost telecommunications channels
Can Our DNA Electromagnetically 'Teleport' Itself?
DNA Strands That Select Nanotubes Are First Step to a Practical 'Quantum Wire'
DNA can discern between two quantum states, research shows
This is just a -smattering- of what has been coming out this year. If anybody is interested, they can look for themselves.
But anyway, I have a sneaking suspicion that 3DM will maintain plausible deniability no matter what I put here.
Here is something to consider. If all of this metaphysical stuff is just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, meant to be interpreted allegorically and figuratively, then how did any of us get here???
How does an entity physically arrive in a 3D body? How does an entity physically leave a 3D body?
We may not know the exact answers to these questions, but what we do know is that birth and death happen. Harvest appears to be a special case of the latter. I really don't see what is so incredulous about it.
What is incredulous to me is how anybody can sit there with a straight face and say, "Well since we have no logical explanation for [insert mysterious thing here], it must not be possible." That kind of attitude really flies in the face of reality. In a world chock full of things that would have been considered "impossible" not much more than a century ago, it just seems like an incredibly preposterous position to take.
[The above statement is not directed at anybody in particular... just "people in general" who scoff at anything that they don't perceive with their five senses.]
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - Tenet Nosce - 08-30-2011
.....
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - 3DMonkey - 08-30-2011
(08-30-2011, 11:45 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:(08-30-2011, 11:00 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: Frankly, the more I study the LOO, the more it becomes abstract with very little literal information.
3DMonkey, have you considered the possibility that your mental insistence on the most mundane possible explanation might be related to why you never have any really cool paranormal experiences?
3DMonkey Wrote:Anyway, I'm jealous. I've experienced nothing like any of this. Zilch.
Just sayin'...
Actually, yes, I have considered it. The truth is I have come to the conclusion from the opposite end of the funnel that you suggest. It has been, from my inception, to "insist", as you say, that the paranormal explanation be the most possible explanation. Over time, over experiences, over studying, I am currently coming to the conclusion that all of "this" is based solely on my condition of being a human... even the explanations of what "this" is are derived from this condition.
(08-30-2011, 11:45 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:I will look with an open mind when I get a chance. What I notice will be what I notice though3DMonkey Wrote:"kind of opening" is an entirely abstract idea.
The "opening" or the "gate" is inside you. Just like everything else of this nature, if the entity lacks sufficient awareness then when the gate opens, they may hallucinate an external gate or portal to pass through- or whatever other perceived scenario is acceptable to their consciousness.
This is the "subjective" portion of the event that I think some people keep referring to. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an actual, literal, physical and energetic change that occurring that would be consistently observed by an onlooker watching the whole thing go down from afar with the proper state of consciousness and scientific framework from which to interpret events.
I don't want to bombard this thread with a bunch of scientific article links, but here are a handful of them each with a little piece of how something like this could even be possible. Notice how this is all coming out now, at the last minute:
New depiction of light could boost telecommunications channels
Can Our DNA Electromagnetically 'Teleport' Itself?
DNA Strands That Select Nanotubes Are First Step to a Practical 'Quantum Wire'
DNA can discern between two quantum states, research shows
This is just a -smattering- of what has been coming out this year. If anybody is interested, they can look for themselves.
But anyway, I have a sneaking suspicion that 3DM will maintain plausible deniability no matter what I put here.
(08-30-2011, 11:45 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Here is something to consider. If all of this metaphysical stuff is just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, meant to be interpreted allegorically and figuratively, then how did any of us get here???
How does an entity physically arrive in a 3D body? How does an entity physically leave a 3D body?
We may not know the exact answers to these questions, but what we do know is that birth and death happen. Harvest appears to be a special case of the latter.
These are the questions that have created this perception of our global collective and these discussions. The best answers are those found in the LOO. The answers found speak to our current abilities to comprehend. These answers are heard more loudly than anything in the past because they are the most current representation of what our "condition" creates. Trying to answer these questions is what will continue us to create in the same manner. An attempt to give an answer is the practice of what we are, and therefore there isn't a definitive answer... only exploration of the question. "Harvest" is another attempt. All we know is that we are, or that we think we are, or that we are part of something larger= body, or mind, or spirit.
(08-30-2011, 11:45 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: I really don't see what is so incredulous about it.
What is incredulous to me is how anybody can sit there with a straight face and say, "Well since we have no logical explanation for [insert mysterious thing here], it must not be possible." That kind of attitude really flies in the face of reality. In a world chock full of things that would have been considered "impossible" not much more than a century ago, it just seems like an incredibly preposterous position to take.
[The above statement is not directed at anybody in particular... just "people in general" who scoff at anything that they don't perceive with their five senses.]
People scoff if they don't want to take the time to consider or to look for *____*. I, personally, think there is a logical explanation for the mysterious. I think the mysterious is something in existence even if it isn't tangible to any of the five senses. Actually, I think the mysterious is tangible, but very difficult to find the direct correlation from mystery to physical expression.
If I may, there is an unwillingness to see how these mysteries could possibly be logical if one is determined to find them unexplainable for the sake of being unexplainable. The mystery, for the most part, will remain mysterious, but I see no reason that we can't put our heads together and see how we got to the point of creating them as a mystery.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - native - 08-30-2011
(08-29-2011, 11:49 PM)unity100 Wrote: there is no obligation for harvest happening after death. contact with intelligent infinity in incarnation, it seems, a more surefire harvest in regard to definite harvestability. notice, how the concept 'judging of harvestability of entity' gets into play in a harvest that happens after incarnation with entity being placed in violet ray body. there is a judgment happening there, probably by the harvesters. however, for the case of contacting intelligent infinity during incarnation, no such mentions were made. it seems, contacting intelligent infinity during incarnation is a definite proof of harvestable violet balance.
Contact within the incarnation would be an immediate effective measurement, yes I agree.
Quote:this bodes rather important conclusions for gradualist proposals, since it is said that 'all entities are harvested regardless of progress at the end of last cycle', and the two entities named from third reich were still waiting for harvest for their harvestability to be gauged during harvest. (because they apparently didnt attain intelligent infinity contact during incarnation - if they did, they would immediately leave the planet as other negatives do - which was told as a thumb rule for self-harvests of negative nature By the way).
That's a good catch, but I'm not sure we can conclude that ultimately everyone must die at the point of harvest. We have no idea as to the period of time that the gateway remains opens. An educated guess would be that it would open for 900 years, relative to the portion of intelligent energy which created the life-span duration for this locality. Interestingly enough it was stated that at max, the full 4d transition would take 700 years, and that they couldn't accurately conclude on that measurement. I will say though that those two waiting for harvest concedes my argument that the harvest possibly started in the 30's.
(08-30-2011, 11:00 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: Yes. "kind of opening" is an entirely abstract idea. As is "the indigo body" an abstract idea in 51.10. As is the idea of a "color". As is the idea of inner light, of Polaris, in 54.26. Even the "entering" of time/space is allegory for an abstract idea applied to space/time, here/now.I understand your perspective. Everything has to be put into words though, or explained symbolically. The nature of reality is symbolic anyway.
Frankly, the more I study the LOO, the more it becomes abstract with very little literal information.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - unity100 - 08-30-2011
(08-30-2011, 02:00 PM)Icaro Wrote:Quote:this bodes rather important conclusions for gradualist proposals, since it is said that 'all entities are harvested regardless of progress at the end of last cycle', and the two entities named from third reich were still waiting for harvest for their harvestability to be gauged during harvest. (because they apparently didnt attain intelligent infinity contact during incarnation - if they did, they would immediately leave the planet as other negatives do - which was told as a thumb rule for self-harvests of negative nature By the way).
That's a good catch, but I'm not sure we can conclude that ultimately everyone must die at the point of harvest. We have no idea as to the period of time that the gateway remains opens. An educated guess would be that it would open for 900 years, relative to the portion of intelligent energy which created the life-span duration for this locality. Interestingly enough it was stated that at max, the full 4d transition would take 700 years, and that they couldn't accurately conclude on that measurement. I will say though that those two waiting for harvest concedes my argument that the harvest possibly started in the 30's.
first, the descriptions of entites named as 'harvested' and 'harvestable' mean that the word harvest is not only used as an indication of status. but it seems to involve death and replacement in a 4d time/space too. the word usage while describing the 150 entities of 2nd density, and the negative harvested ones, and the examples of those negatives named as harvested make that out.
harvestable, as opposed to harvested, seems to mean having successfully contacted intelligent infinity in incarnation, or seen as likely to pass harvest due to their violet ray balance in a violet ray check.
it seems the term 'harvested', involves death and replacement in a 4d experience.
aaand then i am baffled in how you were able this time up your ante to a whopping 900 years. not to mention you have made harvest equal to a portion of intelligent infinity.
there is no need to worry or rush to help a planet fearing a small harvest, if harvest continues for a whopping 900 years. its 900 years. 900 years ago, this planet was in high middle ages, and people were poking each other with metal sharp implements and being happy with it. in 900 years under the presence of a gate of intelligent infinity, infinite amounts of things can be done. not to mention, experience was told to be compressed in 3d, and 900 years is actually much longer in regard to experiential density in 3d than anywhere else.
and, ra, in all their desire for precision, wouldnt make a stupid mistake of saying something that would last 900 years, as 'to happen in 2011'. first, you had tried the possibility of harvest already happening since 1937s, and when it didnt avail, you have this time gone all out and this time upped it to a whopping years without reason. how something can 'happen in 2011' if it is to last 900 years, flies in the face of reality.
at this point i have to conclude that you have a need to have time, for any reason, and therefore going to extreme lengths to protect that viewpoint. tho i hope that whatever you need time for, happens in appropriate time until the harvest completes, i have to say your continual dwelling on these mind boggling time periods and equating harvest with transitions (and then adding some 200 years on top of the worst case too) after all these pointers and information regard to harvest, is only possible by totally ignoring what is explicitly told in the material you are relying on. according to the material, you are incorrect. harvest, was told as going to happen in 2011. not start in 2011 and last. the possibility of harvest lasting a whopping 900 years, and Ra not mentioning it, despite all the specific questions don asked about it are nil. none. nada. zero.
don asked whether harvest was going to be spread out over a period of time, or happen as an event. the answer was it was going to happen at 2011. it doesnt matter if it happens at 2012, or could have happened at 2010. what matters is, the response to harvest being an event that is spread out, is negatory.
at this point i am in the opinion that we discussed this matter with you enough. i wont be continuing discussing this with you, at the cost of reiterating same things over and over and you ignoring them over and over. thank you for your discussion. if you bring something different than totally ignoring what is explicitly mentioned as information in this material, or something not in the form of 'yes, ra said this, but despite they said this, maybe they meant totally the opposite', i will reply.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - Tenet Nosce - 08-30-2011
(08-30-2011, 01:59 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: Actually, yes, I have considered it. The truth is I have come to the conclusion from the opposite end of the funnel that you suggest. It has been, from my inception, to "insist", as you say, that the paranormal explanation be the most possible explanation. Over time, over experiences, over studying, I am currently coming to the conclusion that all of "this" is based solely on my condition of being a human... even the explanations of what "this" is are derived from this condition.
I understand about the inherent limitations of the human form, however the human form is also capable of making contact with intelligent infinity. So the crux of the "matter" is whether you perceive yourself to be a human form striving for contact with intelligent infinity, or where you perceive yourself as intelligent infinity, temporarily manifesting in a human form.
It is interesting that your views have changed in that direction over time. For me, I have become increasingly less of a skeptic as real science continues to pour out which confirms that all of this "wild and crazy" stuff is indeed possible, even if we don't fully understand it.
3DMonkey Wrote:These are the questions that have created this perception of our global collective and these discussions. The best answers are those found in the LOO. The answers found speak to our current abilities to comprehend. These answers are heard more loudly than anything in the past because they are the most current representation of what our "condition" creates. Trying to answer these questions is what will continue us to create in the same manner. An attempt to give an answer is the practice of what we are, and therefore there isn't a definitive answer... only exploration of the question. "Harvest" is another attempt. All we know is that we are, or that we think we are, or that we are part of something larger= body, or mind, or spirit.
I agree. What we appear to be bumping up against in our (the collective "our") attempts to explore the question(s) is a very fundamental misunderstanding of the process by which we can arrive at a greater understanding.
We have a similar pattern occurring in many threads (and I have seen the same patterns in other forums discussing LOO) where certain individuals seem to believe that there is no such thing as any sort of objective truth, whatsoever. Everything is subjective, and becomes whatever they think it means, simply by virtue of the fact that they think it means something. Apparently such an individual must style themselves as such an all-powerful Master of the Universe, that by merely choosing to "believe in" something they can magically transmute the very fabric of the whole of existence.
Apparently, free will is so paramount in the universe that if a single entity should set their will as such, even the awakening of the Planetary Logos, the Solar Logos, and the Galactic Logos, would be placed on hold in order to accede to their demands for "more time" to remain asleep, dreaming their little dreams of being human.
Harvest is a gift from the universe, intended to make up for the fact that "time" has run out for you.
Anyways, everybody is free to believe whatever they want... but then why bother getting involved in a discussion anyway?! If somebody believes that there are no real "answers" to be found, then continuing to throw comments out there on a discussion forum where others are looking for such answers then becomes nothing more than trolling. It just boils down to attention seeking behavior, and getting off on getting a rise out of other people.
Even if, in our current human form, we are utterly incapable of directly perceiving objective truth, it still makes sense to try and approach it as best as we can. At least, in my opinion.
But this gets very frustrating when we can never seem to get a real discussion rolling because every thread gets derailed by somebody who thinks it is clever to start a counter-argument about the time Ra said the word "red" yet due to infinite subjectivity in the universe, and the insurmountable inadequacy of using words as a means of communicating, Ra might have meant "blue".
3DMonkey Wrote:People scoff if they don't want to take the time to consider or to look for *____*. I, personally, think there is a logical explanation for the mysterious. I think the mysterious is something in existence even if it isn't tangible to any of the five senses. Actually, I think the mysterious is tangible, but very difficult to find the direct correlation from mystery to physical expression.
If I may, there is an unwillingness to see how these mysteries could possibly be logical if one is determined to find them unexplainable for the sake of being unexplainable. The mystery, for the most part, will remain mysterious, but I see no reason that we can't put our heads together and see how we got to the point of creating them as a mystery.
Based upon your opinions offered above, I am really at a loss as to how to interpret some of your comments here and on other threads. Sometimes I think we are on the same page, and other times I think we are in totally different books. If the mysterious is tangible, logical, and able to be perceived, then why do you appear to resist any attempt at describing it? Either I am totally misunderstanding your point of view, or it flip-flops quite frequently depending on your mood.
Here is a quote I found that I think is relevant:
13.13 Wrote:Questioner: Was the galaxy that we are in created by the infinite intelligence or was it created by a portion of the infinite intelligence?
Ra: I am Ra. The galaxy and all other things of material of which you are aware are products of individualized portions of intelligent infinity. As each exploration began, it, in turn, found its focus and became co-Creator. Using intelligent infinity each portion created an universe and allowing the rhythms of free choice to flow, playing with the infinite spectrum of possibilities, each individualized portion channeled the love/light into what you might call intelligent energy, thus creating the so-called Natural Laws of any particular universe.
Each universe, in turn, individualized to a focus becoming, in turn, co-Creator and allowing further diversity, thus creating further intelligent energies regularizing or causing Natural Laws to appear in the vibrational patterns of what you would call a solar system. Thus, each solar system has its own, shall we say, local coordinate system of illusory Natural Laws. It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity. Thus all begins and ends in mystery.
The "so-called" Natural Laws are "illusory". So arguing that harvest (as presented in the Ra Material) is not possible because it violates our perception and understanding of Natural Laws is untenable.
Rather, if we are to accept the Ra contact as real, and simply not a fabrication of L/L Research's minds, then it is most logical to assume that Ra meant what Ra said, and if we can't understand how it is possible it is due to a lack of information on our part, not due to the supposition that Ra doesn't understand how 3D entities perceive time, or that Ra doesn't know the difference between red and blue, or due to some other sort of contrivance which essentially boils down to Ra being a dolt, or otherwise highly ignorant about the form and function of the 3D mind.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - 3DMonkey - 08-30-2011
(08-30-2011, 02:00 PM)Icaro Wrote:(08-30-2011, 11:00 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: Yes. "kind of opening" is an entirely abstract idea. As is "the indigo body" an abstract idea in 51.10. As is the idea of a "color". As is the idea of inner light, of Polaris, in 54.26. Even the "entering" of time/space is allegory for an abstract idea applied to space/time, here/now.I understand your perspective. Everything has to be put into words though, or explained symbolically. The nature of reality is symbolic anyway.
Frankly, the more I study the LOO, the more it becomes abstract with very little literal information.
Thank you. I understand as well. But I have a personal opinion about things, things do not need to be put into words. Like you said, words are symbols for something. They are symbols of the mystery of spirit.
"I feel creeped out in this house".
"Prove it".
It can't be done. And what is "creeped out"? The true nature of spirit is expressed. There is no "creeped out". It isn't even a feeling. The mind probes the area of the house, what it brings "light" to in the dark areas of spirit manifest in energy waves of the body, the mind again probes these... and so on and so on.
In this way, the spirit is "real", the mind is aware, and the physical can be classified as illusion because it only reflects the other two. But, this is an exercise in conceptual processing.
Then words are insufficient in every way. Including this instance
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - native - 08-30-2011
Unity - My only reason for trying to sort this out has nothing to do with me personally, or needing time. It has to do with people going around parading that death is approaching in 2011 with almost absolute certainty, when there is clearly enough room for interpretation as to when the harvest would begin. My argument has always been as to when it will begin, and evidence to suggest whether or not is has been occurring. And there is clearly disagreement with your viewpoint, because I was listening to a podcast the other day where Carla reiterated that she believes we will normally live out our lives. Your opinion is clearly subjective, which you continue to disbelieve, as it seems there are quite a few who have been studying this material since its inception and they would disagree with you. You seem hell-bent on proving your opinion on this to yourself and others. Why are you so offended when others can't supposedly understand your viewpoint or rational? Something to think about.
And besides, Ra never said it would happen in 2011. Don asked Ra if it would happen in 2011 which they said was a reasonable date. If Don were to have asked if it will happen in 2020, Ra would have said "Yes, that is a reasonable time frame."
Time in time/space isn't relative to time in space/time. What occurs in a few moments in time/space could be a longer in space/time.
(08-30-2011, 02:58 PM)3DMonkey Wrote:Yes, words are strange. I feel telepathy will be more of a communication of concepts, not sentences...where you send a 'feeling' out and it is simply understood. I'm reading a book right now called The Spell of the Sensuous where it examines the beginnings of oral language where things are communicated as concepts, and how the written language has cut us off from our sensory understanding and connection from the natural world.(08-30-2011, 02:00 PM)Icaro Wrote:(08-30-2011, 11:00 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: Yes. "kind of opening" is an entirely abstract idea. As is "the indigo body" an abstract idea in 51.10. As is the idea of a "color". As is the idea of inner light, of Polaris, in 54.26. Even the "entering" of time/space is allegory for an abstract idea applied to space/time, here/now.I understand your perspective. Everything has to be put into words though, or explained symbolically. The nature of reality is symbolic anyway.
Frankly, the more I study the LOO, the more it becomes abstract with very little literal information.
Thank you. I understand as well. But I have a personal opinion about things, things do not need to be put into words. Like you said, words are symbols for something. They are symbols of the mystery of spirit.
Then words are insufficient in every way. Including this instance
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - Tenet Nosce - 08-30-2011
(08-30-2011, 03:13 PM)Icaro Wrote: It has to do with people going around parading that death is approaching in 2011 with almost absolute certainty, when there is clearly enough room for interpretation as to when the harvest would begin.
I can't answer for unity100, but your use of the word "people" implies more than one.
Actually, I don't see ANYBODY "parading" that death is approaching, and the attitude of certainty which you refer to has to do with certainty about the words that Ra actually chose.
We have two types of argumentation going on here:
The first is argumentation over what Ra actually said. Some folks appear to get their feathers ruffled when another person very matter-of-factly states what Ra actually said because they want to believe that Ra means "blue" when they said "red" or that they were talking about "apples" when they actually said "bananas".
[This situation is being exacerbated by 3DMonkey's apparent view that "bananas" are indeed "bananas" and "red" is in fact "red" but that we should not be talking about them in public]
The second is argumentation over conclusions that may be drawn from what Ra actually said. I do not see anybody- not one person anywhere- saying anything in this category with "absolute certainty". I see a lot of "maybe", "possibly", "in my opinion", and the like.
[NOTE: The remainder of this post is not a direct reply to Icaro]
If we want to have any hope of increasing our collective understanding on the subject of harvest, it makes the most sense to approach it from the standpoint of, "How is this possible?" rather than trying to twist Ra's words to conform with our own limited understanding of what we think is possible.
Moreover, such a process of truth-seeking will invariably involve certain ideas being discarded all the way. The only problem lies in when people start personally identifying with their POV. Then, instead of being happy and grateful when somebody else offers a POV that actually explains more of the facts, said person gets offended, angry, and butt-hurt, feeling like they have been personally attacked, when in fact no such thing has happened. (Ah, yes, I remember now since every thing is SUBJECTIVE in the universe, your free-will choice to interpret my words as offensive magically transforms my intent to that of offensiveness)
If we are all seeking greater truth, then we must be willing to let go of the lesser truths to which we are clinging. In order for this process to occur, it will require willingness on everybody's part to say: "Ah, yes, that makes more sense. I hadn't thought of it that way." or "So happy to learn I was wrong in my beliefs, as they were causing me so much undue stress and anxiety."
Paradoxically, it would appear that those who are whining the loudest about others who supposedly think that their view is the "one true way" or who are speaking with a false sense of "certainty" are exactly those same individuals that REFUSE to change anything about what they believe, no matter how much evidence they are presented with demonstrating that they are incorrect.
Of course, no counter-evidence is offered by such individuals, because none really exists. They just keep repeating their same beliefs over and over again, as if repetition counts for evidence, and then become offended when they are openly challenged.
I am very sorry, but we are in a situation where the only "evidence" is the Ra material. So if two people are debating about a particular point, one person of which has a whole slew of quotes to support their view, and the other person with one or two quotes very liberally interpreted to mean something different, any rational 3rd party observer would adjudicate the debate in favor of person one.
Not that I would expect anybody to actually do this... but if one were to look at my posts on this forum from a linear perspective, they would observe that my opinions have grown, changed, developed, and become refined over time. This directly refutes any claims that I have presented anything as the "one true way" or that I am speaking with authority that I do not possess.
Rather others, no matter how far one goes back, just seem to be saying the same thing over and over again. Different threads, with different iterations, but pretty much the same thing. There is no perceivable evolution of ideas to be found in their posts, with respect to certain sticky points like harvest. Just the same old thing over and over again. I am being purposely redundant here.
But I have actually gone and looked. After the "blowout" in More Positive But Less Harvestable, I actually went and looked back at every person in the thread's first post on Bring4th. Many of you have replies from me to those posts that you are probably unaware of.
I realize that I am borderline being an ass here, but I am getting to the point where it doesn't matter if I really piss people off because I am starting to conclude that this forum is really not conducive to furthering my understanding of the material, so I may not be around here much longer anyway.
Please don't get me wrong, I think that everybody that I have interacted with here is a bright and capable person, with something valuable to contribute. And I certainly don't think that we all need to agree. But my main purpose here is to deepen my understanding of the Ra material, not to have the same argument over and over again. And I certainly have no further interest in wasting time trying to defend myself against nebulous claims insinuating that -I- am the one who refuses to consider alternative views, and that I am just trying to shove my self-righteous, arrogant (and seemingly incorrect) views down people's throats.
If I wanted to play smoke and mirror games, I could just hang out with my "normal" friends and family, thank you very much!
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - unity100 - 08-30-2011
(08-30-2011, 03:13 PM)Icaro Wrote: Unity - My only reason for trying to sort this out has nothing to do with me personally, or needing time. It has to do with people going around parading that death is approaching in 2011 with almost absolute certainty, when there is clearly enough room for interpretation as to when the harvest would begin. My argument has always been as to when it will begin, and evidence to suggest whether or not is has been occurring. And there is clearly disagreement with your viewpoint, because I was listening to a podcast the other day where Carla reiterated that she believes we will normally live out our lives. Your opinion is clearly subjective, which you continue to disbelieve, as it seems there are quite a few who have been studying this material since its inception and they would disagree with you. You seem hell-bent on proving your opinion on this to yourself and others. Why are you so offended when others can't supposedly understand your viewpoint or rational? Something to think about.
- then it means you have a problem with the death approach in 2011 with almost absolute certainty. its just another problem in the list of problems which cause people to attempt extreme interpretations of things that could not be interpreted.
- Carla is not Ra. if its Ra's word over Carla's its Ra's word. when Carla disincarnates, joins Ra or any other social memory complex suitable for her, her social memory complex undertakes a meticulously clear and precise work of channeling, only then it can be "Carla's social memory complex's word".
- i am not hell bent on proving anything. what i am hell bent on is arguing against blatant denial of things bluntly, directly, clearly told in the material. 'harvest will happen in 2011' does NOT mean 'it will begin'. it means, harvest 'will happen' in 2011. this may be 2012, this may have been 2010, its a different matter and the matter of the 'approximate nexus' you speak of. the approximate nexus Ra has mentioned, fits in a YEAR. not 900 years.
you are trying to shove that in into a sentence that does not have that, and this is why we have argued for that long. if i am 'offended' at anything, the offense is someone coming up saying 'ra had said apple, but i think they meant banana'.
and again, no - there is never room for that kind of 'interpretation' in any kind of information transmitted in between any two party - because it is not 'interpreting' anything at all - it is first, IGNORING, then REWRITING it as something that is acceptable to the personal bias.
again, "harvest will happen in 2011" means, harvest is something that fits in a year. and before you again rewrite the entire thing in your mind - no, they did not say it 'would begin'. they said, it would HAPPEN. and if it was to begin and last for x amount of years, ra would just SAY it. the question asked was whether harvest was something that would be spread out or happen at a certain date, and the answer was at a certain date. you cant rewrite this to be 900 years additional.
as for the potential of certain death, i have been just talking on the information we see in the material, whether i like it or not, WITHOUT rewriting it, 'interpreting' it, or trying to make room for anything. and i have clearly and explicitly put references and the pointers. you are continually denying it. there is no discussion on the subject anymore, but constant reiteration of your personal preference. this, indeed has caused me to adamantly argue what you are objecting against, because you were blatantly denying openly worded sentences and totally rewriting them. if you didnt do that, i wouldnt be 'offended' and argued that long, if we explain it with the words you preferred to use, however misplaced and incorrect.
Quote:And besides, Ra never said it would happen in 2011. Don asked Ra if it would happen in 2011 which they said was a reasonable date. If Don were to have asked if it will happen in 2020, Ra would have said "Yes, that is a reasonable time frame."
don didnt ask if 2011 was a reasonable date. and Ra never said it was a TIME FRAME. the exact quote is as follows :
http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=17&sc=1&ss=1#29
Quote:17.29 Questioner: Am I to understand that the harvest is to occur in the year 2011, or will it be spread out?
Ra: I am Ra. This is an approximation. We have stated we have difficulty with your time/space. This is an appropriate probable/possible time/space nexus for harvest. Those who are not in incarnation at this time will be included in the harvest.
the answer is a CERTAIN DATE, even if it is an approximation. there is no timeframe involved.. the answer of the question of whether harvest going to be spread out or at a certain date, IS A CERTAIN DATE. moreover, in the extra information given about those not in incarnation being included at the harvest, 'AT THIS TIME' phrase is used.
there is no way to 'interpret' this other than a bias.
if you go interpreting like that, you can as well reinterpret what positive/negative means. just like someone attempted at some point when it didnt suit with personal biases in a discussion some months ago.
Quote:Time in time/space isn't relative to time in space/time. What occurs in a few moments in time/space could be a longer in space/time.
i dont even think you are really aware of what you are saying anymore. or whether you are intentionally subconsciously forgetting the basic information given in the material regarding what you are using as alibi :
time/space, astral part of existence, is the place where time is plenty. space is less. this was explained as the reason how it was possible to see everything, including past lives of an entity by the entity in grand scale, because time was plenty and readily accessible.
the opposite holds for space/time - space is plenty, there is room for much movement, yet, time is limited. so it is possible to act, but not to see the grand picture.
in short, time is slower in time/space than in space/time. what takes 1 minute in space/time, would allow many many 'time' units in time/space. this would mean that 'happen in 2011' as a year period would mean that it would take much less time for harvest to happen in space/time terms if you use the above approach. something that is very long in time/space, would take just months in space/time.
what you said, reinforces, not reduces what you are objecting against.
(08-30-2011, 03:21 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: ...............
correct approach to truth seeking, is seeking the actual truth, nomatter how unexplainable parts of that truth is, nomatter how uncomfortable that truth is, nomatter how unsatisfactory that truth is.
seeking the true nature of things, is the seeking of truth.
most people seek 'explanations'. there is conformism carried in seeking explanations in a hidden fashion. if something is explained, and the entity is satisfied to a degree with the explanation, things are ok. when you speak of 'explanation' you impliedly include satisfaction in it. and with that mindset, satisfaction can easily take form of what is acceptable to the personal biases of the entity.
truth seeking should be a constant act, and it should be in the form of seeking the true nature of things regardless of what they are and how disturbing, uncomfortable or happy they may be. there is no 'comfort' or 'satisfaction' in seeking truth - there is seeking, and continual unraveling of what is unknown.
same applies in this debate - people have a lot of biases. and some, are spending extra effort to find the truth about something, regardless of how disturbing it may be to their or orhers' biases.
and there are some who are totally denying plainly constructed, precise sentences and rewriting them behind the veil of 'interpretation'.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - Tenet Nosce - 08-30-2011
(08-30-2011, 04:53 PM)unity100 Wrote: Carla is not Ra.
Oh, but she is!
(I just thought I'd say it first)No, Carla is not Ra. And Ra is not Q'uo. And Q'uo is not Seth. And we are all different people with differing views.
Therefore to even attempt to make such an appeal to authority it could only be made on the basis of where -in the density scheme- a given entity is being observed.
And since we do not have tags floating over our heads saying "3.5D" or "4.2D" or "6.1D", the only reliable indicator of "whose view wins" is the degree of coherence with which a body of information, or a particular interpretation of the information, displays.
Any serious student of the Ra material should have already concluded to a sufficient degree in their own minds that the Ra material is coherent enough to even be considered as a reliable source in the first place. We shouldn't have to rehash these same fundamental arguments every time somebody wants to have a conversation.
If an individual is coming at the material from the perspective that it is not coherent, and that it needs to be held together with all manner of of mental machinations, duct tape, and meat glue, in order to stand on its own two feet, then in my opinion the whole thing is garbage.
If red means blue and apples mean bananas, then the Ra material is just another example of "spiritual" psychobabble and gibberish, of which there are innumerable examples, and there is really no point in discussing it at all. It belongs with Marjory out in the trash heap.
Now it is no skin off of my nose if another person thinks that Ra is completely full of feces. I don't care. My beliefs do not require others to believe in them. But please, don't hide in the shadows, pretending to be a "fan" of the material when in reality you think it is all a bunch of crap, and seek to undermine the ability of others to have an instructive conversation around a portion of the material that you happen to find objectionable and/or ridiculous.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - unity100 - 08-30-2011
(08-30-2011, 06:00 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Now it is no skin off of my nose if another person thinks that Ra is completely full of feces. I don't care. My beliefs do not require others to believe in them. But please, don't hide in the shadows, pretending to be a "fan" of the material when in reality you think it is all a bunch of crap, and seek to undermine the ability of others to have an instructive conversation around a portion of the material that you happen to find objectionable and/or ridiculous.
i dont think that was what icaro was doing. it was just blatant denial and rewriting of uncomfortable information according to personal bias, as far as i can see.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - Tenet Nosce - 08-30-2011
(08-30-2011, 06:11 PM)unity100 Wrote:I didn't intend that to be a characterization of Icaro, or anybody for that matter. I really don't know what is going on inside anybody else's mind. I'm stating that just in case it happens to be true for somebody. Even people who are reading this, but refraining from commenting, and anonymous passerby "Guests" visiting this thread in the future.(08-30-2011, 06:00 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Now it is no skin off of my nose if another person thinks that Ra is completely full of feces. I don't care. My beliefs do not require others to believe in them. But please, don't hide in the shadows, pretending to be a "fan" of the material when in reality you think it is all a bunch of crap, and seek to undermine the ability of others to have an instructive conversation around a portion of the material that you happen to find objectionable and/or ridiculous.
i dont think that was what icaro was doing. it was just blatant denial and rewriting of uncomfortable information according to personal bias, as far as i can see.
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - 3DMonkey - 08-30-2011
@ Tenet
You seem the most disturbed by the differing opinions than anyone. I'm not sure what is going on with you.
If you tracked my history, you noticed I have done a complete 180 on this subject. I'm not sure that holding someone's evolution to what comes across on this forum is accurate. Did I come across as stern in my view? If so, my interaction on the forum is misrepresentative.
.... Also, you seem most stern of all as well. Even just pulling out the Ra quotes and reducing the contact down to "harvest talk" does not take into account the entirety of the material. Honestly, no person of who I have read their opinions is disregarding material and valid interpretations thereof.
I don't think you were singling me out. I only want to respond because I think you are one who hasn't opened up to my perspective in particular. .... Here is a method for growth= you put yourself in the position of learn/teach. Ask someone "why" instead of "this doesn't support you, look".
(08-30-2011, 04:53 PM)unity100 Wrote: - Carla is not Ra. if its Ra's word over Carla's its Ra's word. when Carla disincarnates, joins Ra or any other social memory complex suitable for her, her social memory complex undertakes a meticulously clear and precise work of channeling, only then it can be "Carla's social memory complex's word".
Is this distinguished in the material?
RE: Share your vision for the harvest - zenmaster - 08-30-2011
Quote:im at a loss to even see the basis of what you are saying above. it is clearly said that during harvest the entity is immediately placed into violet body upon death. no kind of review happens. if it was a 'grand review' like you interpret, there wouldnt be a need to again be placed into indigo and review and decide for incarnation.
The 'review' is the healing that happens upon any death of a consciously participating entity, not particular to harvest. All I said was at harvest, this is preceded by the locus and vibrational change where one is 'best-matched' to most appropriate environment according to affinity or resonance.