11-09-2012, 01:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-09-2012, 02:13 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
(10-30-2012, 05:16 PM)Patrick Wrote: I find this similar to what you were saying Tenet.
http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._1006.aspx Hatonn Wrote:...Things do not come from you as much as through you, for in whatever you may do, you are a channel. There is no situation in which you are not channeling and being used as an instrument either by yourself, by other entities, or by circumstances themselves. The great choice to make, then, in the desire to speed up the spiritual evolution is the choice to allow that through you which you desire to be spent through you...
This is exquisitely correct.
A ferromagnetic material acquires polarization by alignment of the molecules. Once polarized, a magnet does not (usually) lose its polarization.
That's why it can be confusing to say a magnet is "charged." The idea of charging implies holding electric energy in a capacitor, like a battery or crystal. This is accomplished by the separation of charges according the the process of ionic polarization.
A magnet is typically polarized by placing it into a larger, stronger field. By analogy, our consciousness becomes polarized by placing it into a larger, stronger identity.
For those on the positive path this identity is: I AM THAT.
For those on the negative path this identity is: THAT I AM.
(I AM (THAT) I AM)
In both scenarios, polarization of consciousness occurs by application of the Law of One.
The polarized consciousness, "channels" identity through the Law of Attraction. Identity is the unpolarized (remember magnets attract unpolarized metal filings) "light of harvestable quality (85.11)" The higher the degree of polarization, the less distorted the identity which flows (fluxes) through the channel. Thus:
80.18 Wrote: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.
Notice that Ra says here that Don's statement is "reasonably adequate." How do you suppose we could make this more accurate?