Gerson: Cancer and Disease - What corporations do not want you to know

[Monica]

It is the zealots who go down in history as heroes. Not all zealots are heroes, but most heroes are zealots. Think Gandhi, MLK, Jesus, etc.

[Tenet Nosce]

Yes they do. I still have the highest regard for this zealot.

It is the zealots who go down in history as heroes. Not all zealots are heroes, but most heroes are zealots. Think Gandhi, MLK, Jesus, etc.

It's very interesting to think of Jesus as a zealot. See, I wouldn't characterize him as a zealot, but rather an extremely balanced pragmatist. Now Paul is what I would consider a zealot, and one of the primary sources of the distortions of the teachings of Jesus which have been passed down as Christian fundamentalism.

Which characteristics did Jesus display which each of you would say made him a zealot?

[Skylord Amaranthine Darkcape]

technically Jesus didn't shoot his foot off, he just let the Romans.

[Tenet Nosce]

We have to pick our battles. I have much more issue with the pharmaceutical industry than with overzealous alternative practitioners.

LOL, exactly! See my thought process goes- since we have to pick our battles- why not cover as much ground as possible? That means asking ourselves- Is there something which is primary to the problems both with the pharmaceutical industry and overzealous alternative practitioners? I find yes. The characteristic both groups display in common is prejudice toward the "opposite" group.

That is to say, neither "side" seriously considers the perspective of the "other" group. This is because they lack compassion, which I would define as the ability to see other as self.

Because both of these groups fail to develop compassion toward the "other" group, the rest of "us" suffer needlessly. People don't get the treatments they could really benefit from. Or get the wrong treatment completely. Endless legal and regulatory struggles ensue. Money gets wasted. Life gets wasted. On and on and on. Forever.

This distortion is not in any case necessary.

If we applied the Law of One to the situation at hand, then those of us who are alternative practitioners would gaze upon the pharmaceutical industry with compassion, and seek to understand how "they" are indeed "self". And vice-versa.

At least when people pursue alternative therapies, they know it's likely not 100% proven.

Yes, but when alternative practitioners whip out their "cure", what they are implying to the public is that it has been scientifically proven. This is, more often than not, a lie. It's fraudulent and unethical behavior, and constitutes malpractice.

But if the doctor says to do something, they do it without questioning. I see this everyday in my business. People will be getting great results, but then they get the surgery or treatment because the doctor said to, and then they die.

Yes, but when the doctor whips out his prescription pad, or the surgeon his knife, what they are implying to the public is that the benefits of their "scientifically proven" prescription drug or surgical procedure outweigh the risks. This is, more often than not, a lie. It's fraudulent and unethical behavior, and constitutes malpractice.

Yes, many of them act as though their way is the only way.

I would consider that a basic characteristic of a zealot.

Yet look at how many different ways there are to heal cancer.

Look at how many different ways there are to get cancer. And many cancers are very different from one another. IMO they really shouldn't all be lumped together under one umbrella. That's misleading.

I think a distinction needs to be made between principles and protocols. A principle might be well established, but different so-called 'experts' have different opinions as to how to apply that principle.

Bingo. In addition to this, what is often missing from both "sides" is an acknowledgement of which principles they are basing their protocol. Since this is often undisclosed, the patient doesn't really know what they are agreeing to.

I can also say from experience that a great many so-called 'experts' don't even understand their own principles. Vis a vis "naturopaths" that practice green allopathy, or otherwise practice wildly outside the bounds of naturopathic principles.

Examples of established principles:

Here are the six naturopathic principles. Bold is the principle. The rest is my own commentary.

First Do No Harm. While many medical schools have now removed this fundamental principle of medical practice from their professional oaths, naturopathic doctors have come to embrace it ever more fully. As scientific research into nutrition, exercise, herbs and supplements continues to evolve, we have become empowered with many effective tools to improve health that do not carry the same level of risks as drugs and surgical methods. While naturopathc doctors realize the value of drugs and surgery, we feel it is our professional duty to recommend the most harmless methods first before bringing out the "big guns".

Healing Power of Nature. Naturopathic doctors recognize an innate capacity of the body to heal and regenerate itself from within, given the right resources and environment. As such, we view ourselves as facilitators of this natural process, rather than agents of cure.

Identify the Cause. Naturopathic doctors avoid simply covering up symptoms of an illness and instead work to identify and treat the root cause of an illness so the symptoms can be alleviated long term. For example, rather than simply block pain and inflammation pathways with medications, naturopaths will dig deeper to identify what is causing the pain and inflammation in the first place.

Treat the Whole Person. A human being is not simply a bag of chemicals, but a person with a mind, emotions, spiritual beliefs, friends and family, and environmental factors which all impact an individual patient's health. Rather than simply recommend the same remedy for everybody complaining of the same symptoms, naturopathic doctors use a holistic and comprehensive approach to patient care. Treatment strategies are tailored to each patient's individual makeup.

Doctor as teacher. The word doctor comes from the Latin docere which means: to teach, or more specifically to draw forth. In order to achieve long-term health, naturopathic doctors believe it is essential to educate our patients on how the body works and the reasons why we are choosing a particular course of action. This results in office visits that are often considerably longer than an MD or DO, where a patient is often given 5-8 minutes with an actual physician, if at all. In addition, naturopathic doctors view healing as a co-creation with our patients, and encourage them to become engaged in the decision-making process, rather than to simply obey orders from an authoritative figure.

Prevention is the Best Cure. Clearly, it is better to stay healthy and to only have to see your doctor annually for wellness visits. Naturopathic medicine takes this idea even further and suggests that instead of waiting for an illness to arise, to continually improve and optimize patient health so as to reduce the chances of an intervention in the future. To a naturopathic doctor, "preventive care" refers to this process of continually improving health, rather than putting our patients on certain drugs now, in hopes of avoiding other drugs or surgical interventions later.

What I'm hearing you say is that Gerson is too rigid on protocol. But they probably are like that because they're really just a notch above conventional treatment, as far as the mentality of those they attract. Those choosing such a rigid protocol might still be seeking some 'expert' to 'cure' them, rather than realizing that they are in charge of their own healing process.

Yes.

Then you have Dan the Man, at the opposite end of the spectrum! He's so goofy and stoned looking, I cannot fathom anyone viewing him as any kind of authority!

Let us hope you are right about that!

[Tenet Nosce]

What is your opinion on calcium?

My apologies in advance, but a "Wall O' Text" is forthcoming. I'll throw in a couple pictures too, just to mix it up. But the point of this is for the reader to see the thought process by which I arrive at my opinion, rather than just passing it off as authoritative.

Calcium is one of seven macrominerals which all work together in the body. So, first and foremost, I would be skeptical of any view which presents calcium independently from the other six.

But for the purposes of your question, I usually discuss it along with the other three cationic macrominerals that occur in the first two groups (columns) of the periodic table:

Notice how the Sodium (Na+), Potassium (K+), Calcium (Ca2+), and Magnesium (Mg2+) form a box in the first two groups (columns). That is why I would consider these together. They are the macrominerals that form positively charged ions (cations). In the body, sodium/potassium tend to work as a pair, as do calcium/magnesium.

On the right hand side, in the third period (row) are the other three macrominerals. These are the ones that form negatively charged ions (anions): Phosphorus (P3-), Sulfur (S2-), and Chloride (Cl-).

Incidentally, the rest of the minerals important for biology all occur in the fourth period (row), in the middle section of the table called the "transition metals." Of these, iron, copper, and zinc, are required in greater amounts. Vanadium, chromium, manganese, cobalt, and nickel, also in the fourth period (row), but not on this graphic, are collectively known as the "trace minerals" and are required in lesser amounts.

Also of note, is that the main "heavy metals" which are known to cause toxicity if built up too highly in the body are in the same groups (columns) as copper and zinc, but in different periods (rows). Under copper are silver and gold. And under zinc are cadmium and mercury.

The terms macro- and micro- minerals refer to the amounts required by biological systems. Take a look at this chart for comparison. Just pay attention to the relative amounts. There is, of course, debate about how much of each is really required, but you can see that the amount of macrominerals needed can be several orders of magnitude greater than the microminerals.

So the first practical thing to point out from all this is that the total amount of macrominerals (Na, K, Ca, Mg) needed to meet the biological demands of the body takes up quite a bit of physical space. That means- a LOT of capsules when it comes to supplements.

Which means, it is very impractical to supplement with any of these. It usually means swallowing several "00" or "000" size capsules every day (although they could be in powder or liquid format) which also means a lot of money to pay for these supplements.

Contrast this to the microminerals where a day's supply would fit in a single "0" size capsule.

Therefore, in consideration of the cost and convenience aspects, I would tend to go with food sources as much as possible. Besides the additional nutrients present in the foods, there's the added benefit of the "just right" ratios that are required for life.

Regarding all the myriad "expert" theories regarding the ideal ratios of these, I would tend to go with "that which nature provides." This also happens to be the "scientific" view of the issue.

So, let's look at these one by one. Interestingly enough, the most abundant sources of sodium would be many of the things we consider to be "superfoods" like yeast, spirulina, and seaweeds. Animals which don't have access to these have to rely on mineral salt, or salt licks, as their main source of sodium.

In a way, salt was the original "dietary supplement", and as you probably know it used to be so valuable that people used to get paid in salt- hence the term salary.

The most abundant sources of potassium (by weight, not by calorie or volume) are actually what we have come to known as cooking herbs and spices. Of course, these were also a main driver of the global economy back in Antiquity and are still very expensive today.

After that, the most abundant source of potassium is beans. Including coffee and cocoa "beans" although they are not really beans. Also, the above mentioned "superfoods" are also abundant in potassium. As is dairy, if that is an option.

When it comes to magnesium, seeds are king, with nuts coming in a somewhat distant second. The aforementioned beans (of all types) and superfoods are also good sources of magnesium. Finally, dark leafy green vegetables. Since magnesium is at the core of the chlorophyll molecule, the more green, the better. Incidentally, dairy is a fairly poor source of magnesium.

Finally, we arrive at calcium. Dairy is at the top of the list, if an option. Dark leafy greens are in a close second. And, of course the "superfoods".

Also notice that fruit does not really come up high on the list for any of these. But the fruits that are the highest are typically tropical fruits, like palm, coconut, plantain, banana, and avocado. Then mediterranean fruits like figs, dates, and olives.

So, to sum it all up, it makes the most sense (from many angles) to get our macrominerals from food. Beans and dark leafy greens should be the foundational staples of the diet. Seeds and nuts come next. Along with liberal use of herbs, spices, and salt, as can be afforded. Primary supplementation should come from "superfoods" if they are available, and affordable.

From this perspective, you might also see why I tend to get just as concerned when I hear of people subsisting on a diet of primarily fruit and grains, as I do meat and potatoes. Yikes!

If there is any money left over after all of the above are attended to, then put it toward a macromineral dietary supplement. But ironically, it probably wouldn't be necessary at that point.

Conversely, if I were to prioritize mineral supplements, I would recommend taking a trace mineral supplement first. Then zinc. Iron and copper if necessary, but they often aren't. Then put the macrominerals last.

My specific question is regarding the disagreement over whether to supplement with more calcium (with cofactors) or with magnesium, in order to correct a calcium deficiency.

How is the determination of "calcium deficiency" being made?

[Tenet Nosce]

So I figure, since we are so close to the "finish line" nutritionally-speaking, we might as well go the distance.

To review, if we eat to maximize macromineral consumption we come up with the following priority:

1. Greens and beans
2. Nuts and seeds
3. Herbs, spices, and seasonings
4. Superfoods

Now- chloride and phosphorus are sort of non-issues. It would be pretty much impossible to eat a diet deficient in these. Sulfur, however, can be an issue, and often is. Sulfur does a bunch of stuff, but it is especially important for certain detox pathways that are essential to health.

The most abundant sources of sulfur are the brassicant family, which includes mustard and kale, and cruciferous veggies like broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, kohlrabi, and cabbage. Second to that are the allium family, like onion, garlic, leeks and shallots. Eggs (specifically the yolks) are a also a good source of sulfur, for non-vegans.

Eating as above will pretty much cover the microminerals, with the possible exception of iron. As iron is at the core of the hemoglobin molecule, meat-eaters don't usually have to worry about iron. The best plant sources of iron include sesame seed (or tahini) and chickpeas (or garbanzo beans). Therefore, vegans and vegetarians should be eating plenty of hummous.

Zinc can also sometimes be an issue. Most easily remedied by pumpkin seeds. And/or, for the meat eaters, seafood, particularly oysters.

There are a two other necessary elements which don't fall under the category of macro- or micro- minerals. These are selenium and iodine, and these require special attention.

There aren't many reliable sources of selenium. The brazil nut is an excellent source. Mushrooms are very good sources, so this one place they come into the diet, nutritionally speaking. The allium family is a good source, but not great. Root vegetables, particularly carrot and potato are also OK sources. As is asparagus.

Iodine is pretty sparse amongst land creatures, both plant and animal. Sea creatures, both plant and animal, are good sources. Or iodized salt.

Onto the vitamins...

Vitamin A isn't really found in plants. Plants have carotenoids (including beta-carotene) which are used by animals to make vitamin A. It is what gives plants red, orange, and yellow color. Squashes, carrots, sweet potatoes, and yams are excellent sources. Tomatoes and peppers are also good sources. For meat-eaters, organ meats are excellent sources of vitamin A.

Most of the B vitamins are already covered by the above foods. B12 might be more of an issue in vegans, or anybody with poor gut ecology, since gut microbes produce some B12 for us. Again, the "superfoods" like yeast, algae, and cyanobacteria come up high on the list. Also organ meats.

Vitamin C is covered by the cruciferous veggies and peppers, and to a lesser extent tomatoes.

Vitamin D isn't really a vitamin, but a prohormone produced when ultraviolet light interacts with cholesterol in the skin. So we actually need sunlight (about 20-30 minutes per day average exposure) to be "nutritionally complete." However, there are some other food sources which have become more suited to areas of the earth with low sunlight exposure. Mushrooms are a good source of vitamin D (actually vitamin D-2), and this can be enhanced by treating them with ultraviolet light. Fatty fish that tend toward more arctic environments, like salmon, herring, or mackerel, may also "store more sunlight" in their fat tissue as vitamin D.

Vitamin E (actually tocopherols in plants) is covered by the greens and seeds. It's worth noting that whole grains are also a decent source of vitamin E. But it must be whole grains, as vitamin E is fat-soluble and found in the bran and germ, rather than the endosperm which is almost entirely carbohydrate.

(We're almost done.)

There are two other main nutritional considerations from a nutritional standpoint: essential fatty acids and fiber.

Of the essential fatty acids (EFAs), omega-6 and omega-3 are needed in the greatest amounts. Omega-6s usually aren't an issue in meat-eaters, and are easily covered by nuts, seeds, and avocado for the nutritionally-balanced vegan or vegetarian. For omega-3s, we should pay special attention to flaxseed and walnut. And for those who eat meat, those same fatty fishes mentioned above.

Fiber is where I would really start talking about fruits. Vegetables and whole grains are great sources of insoluble fiber, which is important for mechanical cleaning and "bulking" of stools. But they aren't that great for soluble fiber, the notable exceptions being asparagus, artichoke, fennel, okra, and the allium family.

Fruit is a great source of soluble fiber which is essential for healthy gut ecology. Gut bacteria ferment the soluble fiber for food. There are quite a number of different subtypes of soluble fiber, so eating a great variety of fruit is the best approach here.

Of course, fruits are also excellent sources of many other nutrients. Nutritionally-speaking I would put blueberry at the top of the list. But fruits are also very high in sugar, and in my professional opinion, should be limited to no more than 3 servings a day.

Also important to note here is that when we juice a fruit (or vegetable) we remove the fiber from it. Which is why I get concerned when I hear of people with gut problems being encouraged to go on a juice fast.

Whew! I think that covers it! Oh, that's right. One more thing: Protein.
Luckily, we've got that covered by now!

So we can see how taking a nutritional, biochemistry-based standpoint to eating offers a sound, rational, "scientific" approach to diet that can actually be summed up with a couple pages of text and a few pictures!

(Kind of makes me wonder what everybody else is selling books and spreading viral videos about!)

So to review, in order of priority:

1. Greens and beans
2. Nuts and seeds
3. Herbs, spices, and seasonings
4. Superfoods
5. Cruciferous veggies
6. Squashes and root vegetables
7. Garlic, onions, peppers, and tomatoes
8. Mushrooms
9. Other random veggies, e.g. asparagus, artichoke, fennel, okra, etc.
10. Fruit
11. Whole Grains
(If non-vegan)
12. Eggs
13. Dairy
(If non-vegetarian)
14. Sea animals
15. Land animals
(If wanting to get sick and fat)
16. Refined grains, pastries, candy, and soda pop

---

Getting back to the Gerson Therapy, the above makes it unnecessary to talk much about dietary "cancer cures". The above nutritional, biochemistry-based approach would confer the same benefits, if not superior benefits. Not only for cancer, but for pretty much any condition.

It is also a forward-looking, health-supporting approach, rather than a backward-looking, disease-treating approach. It also has the added benefit of avoiding costly legal entanglements, cease-and-desist orders, regulatory agencies, or having to take to the streets with torches. Beyond all of this, it is an approach which is backed by SCIENCE! :idea:

And of course, if there are health and/or environmental and/or political concerns, simply reverse the order. Take #16 out first, and work backwards up the list. Simple.

Finally, but not at all least important, this is also the approach which maximizes the amount of nutrition per dollar spent. So, it is achievable for the poor and destitute, as well. Nobody has to go down to Mexico for their "cure", or spend untold thousands on other treatments, or even dietary supplements.

[Tenet Nosce]

Of course.

But that's not the quite the same thing as Ra is talking about.

You should be able to see a correlation between harvestable and polarity. I said should.

There is a correlation, but they are not identical concepts.

light of harvestable quality

The "light of harvestable quality" is what can be perceived, and this is a function of the degree of polarization. It says nothing, however, about which path the polarization occurred. The light is the same light, whether it was attracted through negative or positive polarization. There isn't a "positive" and "negative" light. Just light.

Therefore- Even if I could perceive that a being had sufficient light to be harvested, that would tell me nothing about how they attracted that light.

Let's go back to the magnet analogy. Here is a diagram of a bar magnet:

If we were to construct a permeable barrier, or veil, and pass this magnet through such that exactly one-half of it was poking through to the other side, there would be no way to tell from the other side, if it were the south or the north pole of the magnet. They are identical, and the naming of each side is completely arbitrary.

It's not like the molecules on the south pole are arranged a certain way, and the molecules on the north pole are arranged another way. The molecules which confer the polarity (positive or negative) to the magnet are all aligned in exactly the same way.

It is, however, possible to measure the degree of polarization of the magnet. This can be done directly if we are able to see all the way down to the molecular level, and actually count the number of molecules that are in alignment.

Or this can be done indirectly, by placing the magnet in the vicinity of unpolarized metal filings. By measuring the amount of filings which are attracted to the magnet, we can infer the degree of polarization. The more that are attracted, the higher the degree.

Harvestability refers to the degree of polarization. Past a certain threshold of polarization, which represents the degree of alignment of an entity, there is a sufficient amount of unpolarized light attracted to the entity to be harvested. However, this says nothing about how the entity became polarized.

Due to the nature of the bias of our Logos, it is more difficult to polarize on the negative path. We could envision this bias as being represented by a field of consciousness with counter-rotating spirals. Let's say, arbitrarily, clockwise is positive, and counterclockwise is negative.

There is much more of the field of consciousness with a positive clockwise rotation (other as self), rather than a negative counterclockwise rotation (self as other). Thus, in order to polarize on the positive path, an entity need only "go with the flow", or seek to accept catalyst encountered. To polarize on the negative path, an entity must "go against the grain", or seek to control the catalyst offered.

So we can see that Ra's statements are not contradictory. It is impossible to judge the polarity (i.e. path of polarization) of an entity. It is, however, possible to judge an entity's degree of polarization, and therefore ascertain harvestability.

[Monica]

Thanks Tenet! I'm having a busy weekend but I will read your posts as soon as I get a few minutes.

[BrownEye]

If we were to construct a permeable barrier, or veil, and pass this magnet through such that exactly one-half of it was poking through to the other side, there would be no way to tell from the other side, if it were the south or the north pole of the magnet. They are identical, and the naming of each side is completely arbitrary.

An obvious analog would be a compass. So what do you suppose the analog is for? And why do you suppose that it is impossible for anyone to be using the spiritual compass?

The "light of harvestable quality" is what can be perceived, and this is a function of the degree of polarization. It says nothing, however, about which path the polarization occurred. The light is the same light, whether it was attracted through negative or positive polarization. There isn't a "positive" and "negative" light. Just light.

85.11 you may see that the service-to-self choice is one which denies the very center of the spectrum

Sorry bud, many, many of us can see.:idea:

Free will of course allows you to choose not to see. With 4D, 5D, and 6D tools and guidance available, why ignore it all?

To polarize on the negative path, an entity must "go against the grain", or seek to control the catalyst offered.

What you call zealots go against the grain, yet many are polarized positive, and almost none are polarized negative. Pretty much the only polarized negative entities run the world, giving us our core religious beliefs and schooling institutions.

A common mistake is to think that "going with the flow" is the same as "getting in the flow". A positive polarized entity that gets in the flow is given the power to help others (showing us more options/choices), while a negative polarized entity is given the power to control others (removing options/choices). Just "going with the flow" is following the path of least resistance and is not polarizing at all. Following the routine habits and addictions can be "going with the flow".

To polarize on the negative path, an entity must "go against the grain", or seek to control the catalyst offered.

You have a way to find the line between consciously created catalyst and control of catalyst? If you did you would also "see" what you are trying to say is impossible to see.

I only know of one other person on this forum that can measure someones polarity. So i find it humorous when folks fling the terms "polarity" and "sts/sto". I really have to bite my tongue

As far as anybody around the forum who claims they can make such an assessment, I am reminded of another quote:

One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with their electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

Another method of viewing polarities might involve the concept of radiation/absorption. That which is positive is radiant; that which is negative is absorbent.

Within the analogy, as all is one, it is impossible to judge anything. And so there is no choice to be made. Yet, some of us are here to place importance on choice, and we will continue the game.

13.23 However, the thought-forms of your people during this transition period are such that the mind/body/spirit complexes of both individual and societies are scattered throughout the spectrum instead of becoming able to grasp the needle, shall we say, and point the compass in one direction.

Isn't it interesting that compass is part of the word compassion?

[Tenet Nosce]

An obvious analog would be a compass. So what do you suppose the analog is for? And why do you suppose that it is impossible for anyone to be using the spiritual compass?

Interesting that Ra decided to use the magnet to demonstrate the concept of polarity, while you decide to use the compass. And when I explained above how the polarity of a magnet actually works, you choose to ignore it. :idea:

But, yes, the purpose of the compass is to determine the underlying direction of the earth's magnetic field, so that one may come into alignment with it. Question: How did the compass point become polarized in the first place?

85.11 you may see that the service-to-self choice is one which denies the very center of the spectrum

Sorry bud, many, many of us can see.:idea:

You aren't responding to my point. There is no difference between the non-polarized "light of harvestable quality" of an entity which polarizes on the positive path, than on the negative path.

There is a difference in the two paths. The difference being that the negative path denies green-ray catalyst, as you pointed out.

Free will of course allows you to choose not to see. With 4D, 5D, and 6D tools and guidance available, why ignore it all?

I never said to ignore higher-density tools and guidance. I do question what would be the purpose of assigning polarity values to other entities, if it were possible, other than to aggrandize the ego and inflate one's sense of self-importance. But to each his own; It's all catalyst, anyway.

What you call zealots go against the grain, yet many are polarized positive, and almost none are polarized negative. Pretty much the only polarized negative entities run the world, giving us our core religious beliefs and schooling institutions.

LOL- no. That is what -you- are calling a zealot. I would characterize a zealot as an extreme idealist who takes the attitude of "my way or the highway" and seeks to force their chosen ideals upon everybody else.

In contrast to idealism is pragmatism. Doing what is practical, and what works. That's why I would classify Jesus as a pragmatist, and definitely not a zealot.

According to the definition of "zealot" that I have selected, most of the "negatively polarized entities" you describe above are the zealots. Occasionally, entities decide that the proper way to counteract this nagatively-oriented zealotry is with positively-oriented zealotry. Given enough time and awareness they will invariably find that this methodology isn't effective.

What is effective is to have compassion for these "negatively polarized" entities, and to do the inner work necessary to balance overzealousness.

That's fine if we have different definitions of "zealot". But I will go with the dictionary definition:

zeal·ot
noun \ˈze-lət\
Definition of ZEALOT

1 capitalized : a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century a.d. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine

2 : a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan <a religious zealot>

Examples of ZEALOT

<zealots on both sides of the issue resorted to name-calling and scare tactics>

Origin of ZEALOT
Late Latin zelotes, from Greek zēlōtēs, from zēlos
First Known Use: 1537
Related to ZEALOT
Synonyms: crusader, fanatic, ideologue (also idealogue), militant, partisan (also partizan), red hot, true believer
Antonyms: nonmilitant

zeal·ous
adjective \ˈze-ləs\
Definition of ZEALOUS
: marked by fervent partisanship for a person, a cause, or an ideal : filled with or characterized by zeal <zealous missionaries>

A common mistake is to think that "going with the flow" is the same as "getting in the flow". A positive polarized entity that gets in the flow is given the power to help others (showing us more options/choices), while a negative polarized entity is given the power to control others (removing options/choices). Just "going with the flow" is following the path of least resistance and is not polarizing at all. Following the routine habits and addictions can be "going with the flow".

Yes, I agree with what you are saying here. But that's not what I was referring to by "going with the flow." What I was referring to is alignment with the bias of our Logos- which is toward the positive path.

Another method of viewing polarities might involve the concept of radiation/absorption. That which is positive is radiant; that which is negative is absorbent.

Yes. This is where I got the "counterrotating spirals" analogy from. If there were two counterrotating spirals in the ground, the clockwise one would appear to be "radiant" while the counterclockwise one would appear to be "absorbent."

Within the analogy, as all is one, it is impossible to judge anything. And so there is no choiceto be made. Yet, some of us are here to place importance on choice, and we will continue the game

Then, let me know when you tire of playing games. I get the feeling our views really aren't all that different, except for that you might find a thorough review of how magnets become polarized to be revealing. Other than that, it appears you are just being argumentative with me, for some unknown reason.

Isn't it interesting that compass is part of the word compassion?

Yes, that is interesting. So, how would you define compassion? I would define it as "seeing oneself in others."

[BrownEye]

The word ION is pretty self explanatory. Might look at the suffix added to words and ask why it is added? No point in running circles.

Definition of ION
1: an atom or group of atoms that carries a positive or negative electric charge as a result of having lost or gained one or more electrons

2: a charged subatomic particle (as a free electron)


Definition of COMPASS
-to devise or contrive often with craft or skill

-a piece of equipment used for finding your way, with a needle that always points north

-a circumscribed space

Origin of COMPASS
Middle English, from Anglo-French cumpasser to measure, from Vulgar Latin *compassare to pace off, from Latin com- + passus pace

This is where I got the "counterrotating spirals" analogy from. If there were two counterrotating spirals in the ground, the clockwise one would appear to be "radiant" while the counterclockwise one would appear to be "absorbent."

Part of my purpose is the creation of vortexes. Possibly where the argument stems from is your perception of what "direction" does what. In specifics of invoking or dispersing, creating vortexes, using your view I would be creating portals to pull up energy from the lower astral.

[Tenet Nosce]

The word ION is pretty self explanatory. Might look at the suffix added to words and ask why it is added? No point in running circles.

Oh, you are talking about ionic polarization? Well that at least makes more sense now!

But Ra wasn't talking about ionic polarization. They were talking about magnetic polarization. That's two different things.

Ionic polarization is due to the separation of charges in a crystal. In the body ionic polarization occurs among the macrominerals described above (Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Cl-, S2-, P3-)

Magnetic polarization is due to the alignment of molecules in a ferromagnetic material. Most of these are the microminerals in the fourth row (period) like iron, nickel, and cobalt.

Two different things. Since crystals are your area of expertise, I can see how you might conflate the two. But in the material, Ra is using magnetic polarization as the model. Different principles.

Part of my purpose is the creation of vortexes. Possibly where the argument stems from is your perception of what "direction" does what. In specifics of invoking or dispersing, creating vortexes, using your view I would be creating portals to pull up energy from the lower astral.

Oh, I don't know too much about how vortexes work. Which is why I said I was assigning the directions arbitrarily. Plus it depends on perception. A spiral which appears to move clockwise from the front, looks like it it rotating counterclockwise from behind.

Good thing I'm not meddling in making portals and accidentally pulling in energy that I can't control.

Anyway, look here at this page from a company that manufactures magnets. It will explain some things about magnetic polarization.

http://www.mceproducts.com/knowledge-bas...l.asp?id=9

If your parts are symmetrical such that the polarity does not matter, then of course it is not necessary to indicate the polarity...
Do not confuse "orientation" with "polarity". The orientation only gives the preferred magnetization axis, while polarity tells which pole will be at a specific location.

[Tenet Nosce]

COMPASS

54.26 Questioner: Can you describe the energy that enters these energy centers? Can you describe its path from its origin, its form, and its effect? I don’t know if this is possible.

Ra: I am Ra. This is partially possible.

54.27 Questioner: Would you please do that?

Ra: The origin of all energy is the action of free will upon love. The nature of all energy is light. The means of its ingress into the mind/body/spirit complex is duple.

Same light. Two points of entry into the mind/body/spirit complex.

Firstly, there is the inner light which is Polaris of the self, the guiding star. This is the birthright and true nature of all entities. This energy dwells within.

The "moral compass" dwells within. It is the inner light of the self. This is why Jesus said the "Kingdom of God" dwells within.

The zealots, on the other hand, refer to the "Kingdom of God" as the return of an external "Messiah" who will reward the "righteous" and punish the "wicked."

The second point of ingress is the polar opposite of the North Star, shall we say, and may be seen, if you wish to use the physical body as an analog for the magnetic field, as coming through the feet from the earth and through the lower point of the spine. This point of ingress of the universal light energy is undifferentiated until it begins its filtering process through the energy centers. The requirements of each center and the efficiency with which the individual has learned to tap into the inner light determine the nature of the use made by the entity of these in-streamings.

Here they are also talking about magnetic polarization in contrast to ionic polarization. Again, two very different things. Like white magic and black magic. This is why :

A highly polarized positive mind/body/spirit complex surrounded by negative portions of space/time will experience only darkness, for like the magnet, there is no, shall we say, likeness. Thus a barrier is automatically formed.

[BrownEye]

I have no idea why you are still focused on the physical rather than the metaphysical.

I work in the metaphysical including ionic interaction. Not magnets lol!

[Tenet Nosce]

Crystals and magnets are both physical objects with metaphysical properties.

[BrownEye]

The magnetic field is what holds your form. That field is already "magnetically" polarized.

I doubt this will fill in the holes for you, yet I will put them up anyways.

Light will cause/create a magnetic field, don't confuse the magnetic fields with the absorption or alignment of light. It is your own thought that will align this light, which can activate each smaller "magnetic field" (chakra) that will allow more light, store more light, the alignment of this light then causing polarization. The physical/magnetic is just a container.

49.6
Meanwhile the Creator lies within. In the north pole the crown is already upon the head and the entity is potentially a god. This energy is brought into being by the humble and trusting acceptance of this energy through meditation and contemplation of the self and of the Creator.

Where these energies meet is where the serpent will have achieved its height. When this uncoiled energy approaches universal love and radiant being the entity is in a state whereby the harvestability of the entity comes nigh.

57.6 Questioner: Would you tell me how to use that crystal for this purpose?

Ra: I am Ra. This is a large question.

You first, as a mind/body/spirit complex, balance and polarize the self, connecting the inner light with the upward spiraling in-pourings of the universal light. You have done exercises to regularize the processes involved. Look to them for the preparation of the crystallized being.

Take, then, the crystal and feel your polarized and potentiated balanced energy channeled in green-ray healing through your being, going into and activating the crystalline regularity of frozen light which is the crystal. The crystal will resound with the charged light of incarnative love and light energy, and will begin to radiate in specified fashion, beaming, in required light vibrations, healing energy, focused and intensified towards the magnetic field of the mind/body/spirit complex which is to be healed. This entity requesting such healing will then open the armor of the overall violet/red-ray protective vibratory shield. Thus the inner vibratory fields, from center to center in mind, body, and spirit, may be interrupted and adjusted momentarily, thus offering the one to be healed the opportunity to choose a less distorted inner complex of energy fields and vibratory relationships.

What we have here is healing and balancing, not polarizing.

54.4 Questioner: I would like to trace the energy that I assume comes from the Logos. I will make a statement and let you correct me and expand on my concept.

From the Logos comes all frequencies of radiation of light. These frequencies of radiation make up all of the densities of experience that are created by that Logos. I am assuming that the planetary system of our sun, in all of its densities, is the total of the experience created by our sun as a Logos. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

54.31 Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, we would state that we had not finished answering the previous query and may thus answer both in part by stating that in the fully activated entity, only that small portion of in-streaming light needed to tune the energy center is used, the great remainder being free to be channeled and attracted upwards.

65.12 Questioner: Then each of the Wanderers here acts as a function of the biases he has developed in any way he sees fit to communicate or simply be in his polarity to aid the total consciousness of the planet. Is there any physical way in which he aids, perhaps by his vibrations somehow just adding to the planet just as electrical polarity or charging a battery? Does that also aid the planet, just the physical presence of the Wanderers?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and the mechanism is precisely as you state. We intended this meaning in the second portion of our previous answer.

80.17 Questioner: How would you describe the Significator of the Spirit?

Ra: I am Ra. In answer to the previous query we set about doing just this. The Significator of the Spirit is that living entity which either radiates or absorbs the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator, radiates it to others or absorbs it for the self.

Category: Tarot: Significator of the Spirit

80.18 Questioner: Then would this process of radiation or absorption, since we have what I would call a flux or flux rate, be the measure of the adept?

Ra: I am Ra. This may be seen to be a reasonably adequate statement.

Now if we go back to your original quote you might understand that Ra is comparing a magnet to a physical body, and that there is no way to judge the polarity in that way, nor is there a way to judge polarizing by watching a physical action take place.

93.3 Questioner: Thank you. You have stated previously that the foundation of our present illusion is the concept of polarity. I would like to ask, since we have defined the two polarities as service to others and service to self, is there a more complete or eloquent or enlightening definition of these polarities or any more information that we don’t have at this time that you could give on the two ends of the poles that would give us a better insight into the nature of polarity itself?

Ra: I am Ra. It is unlikely that there is a more pithy or eloquent description of the polarities of third density than service to others and service to self due to the nature of the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions towards perceiving concepts relating to philosophy in terms of ethics or activity. However, we might consider the polarities using slightly variant terms. In this way a possible enrichment of insight might be achieved for some.

One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with their electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

Another method of viewing polarities might involve the concept of radiation/absorption. That which is positive is radiant; that which is negative is absorbent.

It almost sounds like the concept you are looking for would enable the creation of a machine that we could step into and manually polarize the self for harvest.

[Tenet Nosce]

The magnetic field is what holds your form. That field is already "magnetically" polarized.

It is magnetic. But also electric. When light moves, it creates both magnetic and electric fields. These fields operate according to different principles, although they of course interact.

Light will cause/create a magnetic field, don't confuse the magnetic fields with the absorption or alignment of light. It is your own thought that will align this light, which can activate each smaller "magnetic field" (chakra) that will allow more light, store more light, the alignment of this light then causing polarization. The physical/magnetic is just a container.

The "light of harvestable quality" which is attracted through polarization of consciousness is unpolarized light. Polarized light cannot be harvested, but becomes trapped in the density of destination.

The polarized consiousness attracts the light. Not the other way around. The attracted light doesn't cause the polarization of consciousness.

49.6
Meanwhile the Creator lies within. In the north pole the crown is already upon the head and the entity is potentially a god. This energy is brought into being by the humble and trusting acceptance of this energy through meditation and contemplation of the self and of the Creator.

Where these energies meet is where the serpent will have achieved its height. When this uncoiled energy approaches universal love and radiant being the entity is in a state whereby the harvestability of the entity comes nigh.

Yes. But it is the same unpolarized light which is entering the mind/body/spirit complex from two places. "The nature of all energy is light. The means of its ingress into the mind/body/spirit complex is duple. (54.27)"

It isn't positively-polarized light entering from one side, and negatively-polarized light entering from the other. Unpolarized light from both ends.

What we have here is healing and balancing, not polarizing.

This is precisely correct. The discussion about healing and balancing with crystals is different from the discussion about polarization of consciousness. They are two different things. That's what I have been saying.

54.31 Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, we would state that we had not finished answering the previous query and may thus answer both in part by stating that in the fully activated entity, only that small portion of in-streaming light needed to tune the energy center is used, the great remainder being free to be channeled and attracted upwards.

Yes, exactly. The "instreaming light" balances the energy centers precisely because it is unpolarized. Streaming polarized light into an energy center would further imbalance and detune it.

65.12 Questioner: Then each of the Wanderers here acts as a function of the biases he has developed in any way he sees fit to communicate or simply be in his polarity to aid the total consciousness of the planet. Is there any physical way in which he aids, perhaps by his vibrations somehow just adding to the planet just as electrical polarity or charging a battery? Does that also aid the planet, just the physical presence of the Wanderers?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and the mechanism is precisely as you state. We intended this meaning in the second portion of our previous answer.

Yes, exactly. The Wanderer has already acquired polarity before coming to the planet. They have already been harvested. Just like a permanent magnet, the polarity once acquired is very difficult to lose.

That means the Wanderer can just "be themselves" in the world. They do not have to be concerned about whether or not they are polarizing enough to be harvested. They have already gone through that process.

However, the Wanderer is free to use this opportunity to increase their polarization, if they so desire.

80.17 Questioner: How would you describe the Significator of the Spirit?

Ra: I am Ra. In answer to the previous query we set about doing just this. The Significator of the Spirit is that living entity which either radiates or absorbs the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator, radiates it to others or absorbs it for the self.

Yes. And as you pointed out in 54.31: in the fully activated entity, only that small portion of in-streaming light needed to tune the energy center is used.

The remainder of that light can either be radiated out to others, or stored in the the body, as you also pointed out earlier.

80.18 Questioner: Then would this process of radiation or absorption, since we have what I would call a flux or flux rate, be the measure of the adept?

Ra: I am Ra. This may be seen to be a reasonably adequate statement.

Yes, we could go with this, if we are satisfied with basing the measure on a "reasonably adequate statement.". A more accurate statement would be to base the measure of the adept on the amount of "light of harvestable quality" that they have attracted through the polarization of consciousness.

Now if we go back to your original quote you might understand that Ra is comparing a magnet to a physical body, and that there is no way to judge the polarity in that way, nor is there a way to judge polarizing by watching a physical action take place.

Yes, exactly.

Don: any more information that we don’t have at this time that you could give on the two ends of the poles that would give us a better insight into the nature of polarity itself?

Ra: One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet.

This is exactly why it is important to make sure we are not confusing ionic polarization as the analog of polarization of consciousness. The correct analog for polarization of consciousness is magnetic polarization.

It almost sounds like the concept you are looking for would enable the creation of a machine that we could step into and manually polarize the self for harvest.

I'm not looking for a concept. I am describing it.