David Wilcock

[Ali Quadir]

Here Ali, is a perfectly splendid example of the ambiguity you have offered as a thought that we rightly consider. As asked in the post previously, is the ambiguity coming from the reader's interpretation, or from the authors? If the author is so openly adamant and confident of his position as to stake out his position on such ambiguities, how then may this be interpreted as a scholarly argument, much less as a definitive conclusion? It leaves his assertion in ambiguity, as much as it does to his authority or to "his truth" as proof positive. At least this much one must concede to, given that two vastly contradictory positions may not occupy the same space. The author's interpretation is in question, and not slightly so.

Excelent The ambiguity was understood.. I am most pleased and satisfied.

However, in this case he is not staking his reputation on one of Ra's ambiguous statements. He's staking it on a very clear statement. Your suggestion that this is ambiguous is a huge exaggeration as I will show.

Wilcock may have blunderingly offered the very best explanation for a Gradualist Position ever imaginable as a Proof Positive assertion that the Harvest is a fine delicate almost imperceptible transition.

I'm not at all clear on the logic you used to deduce this. But lets entertain the notion... If Ra meant discreet, then his other words must reflect this. The word was not used in a vacuum...

Oh wait... Quanta the essence of discrete...
1. Ra: However, the nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discrete placement of vibratory level.
2. Ra: However, the nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discreet placement of vibratory level.
The first sentence is physical truth as our scientists know.
The second sentence would be nonsensical according to our scientists.

It is not the nature of quanta to be discreet. It is their nature to be discrete. Ask any physicist.

This proves that the original spelling is correct and we should not change this spelling just because we dislike the meaning of the original word.

The meaning of "Movement over the boundary" is an exact analogy again with what we mean in quantum physics when we say a quantum is a discrete "thing".

What would Ra have meant? The word discrete that was written down in the session? And that is contextually accurate? Or the word discreet, which is contextually inaccurate, which was not written down in the actual session? And which has only been suggested here and now in an attempt to defend a position that does not really seem to come up in Ra's words. But could be explained by misunderstandings over the difference between instantaneous harvest and the longer process of transitioning into 4d.

"However, the nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discrete placement of vibratory level."
The movement over the boundary is discrete. This is the nature of quanta. Ra explains in the same session 40 that the densities are quanta!

Questioner: Thank you. I was also wondering if the first-density corresponded somehow to the color red, the second to the color orange, the third to the color yellow and so on through the densities corresponding to the colors in perhaps a way so that the basic vibration which forms the photon that forms the core of all atomic particles would have a relationship to the color in the density and that that vibration would step up for second, third, and fourth-density corresponding to the increase in the vibration of the colors. Is any of this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is more correct than you have stated. Firstly, you are correct in positing a quantum, if you will, as the nature of each density and further correct in assuming that these quanta may be seen to be of vibratory natures corresponding to color as you grasp this word. However, it is also true, as you have suspected but not asked, that each density is of the metaphysical characteristic complex of its ray. Thus in first-density the red ray is the foundation for all that is to come. In second density the orange ray is that of movement and growth of the individual, this ray striving towards the yellow ray of self-conscious manifestations of a social nature as well as individual; third-density being the equivalent, and so forth, each density being primarily its ray plus the attractions of the following ray pulling it forward in evolution and to some extent coloring or shading the chief color of that density.

Ra himself is stating clearly and unambigously that the transfer must be instantaneous. Quanta are discrete in the method they move over their boundaries. Densities are quanta in nature. Ergo by simple application of hypothetical syllogism we discover that Densities must be discrete and change from one into the other not gradually, but instantaneously.

Ra is literally stating this, and I see no room for ambiguity. The discrete vs discreet suggestion is really just speculation that is contraindicated by Ra's own choice of words in the same sentence.

So Ra has unambiguously stated the instantaneous position and this proves that the Harvest is a discrete movement of quanta over a boundary. It cannot be discreet without contradicting Ra.

This does not mean there is not a period of change! As we've seen before in the freezing of water example I keep giving. It takes a long time to freeze water, but the actual freezing is pretty much instantaneous.

Again this is what Wilcock has been saying for years now, and I see this clearly reflected in the words chosen by Ra.

In Session 17:

Questioner: Am I to understand that the harvest will occur in the year 2,011, or will it be spread?

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.

A nexus is a connecting point. Ra basically states here that the harvest is possible in 2011. If harvest really takes 700 years then it could never be in 2011. Not even if we take into account Ra's difficulty in dealing with human time...

I cannot conclude that Wilcock is mistaking. In fact the evidence provided by the gradualist side in this case seems to me to clearly support the instantaneous side much more. You guys actually needed to suggest spelling errors and ignore context to make this case.

Perhaps we should look for another area where Wilcock potentially violates the original material. Because I very much doubt this is it. Wilcocks statements in this regard are supported by Ra. But there might still be other areas where he is wrong.

Unless someone quotes a passage that clearly and unambiguously supports the gradualist position I think the instantaneous position right now is the most likely candidate for what Ra meant.