David Wilcock

[Monica]

Like you I do not agree with his assertion that he has proven things beyond a doubt. In my opinion proof does not belong in an empirical universe. Ever.

Glad we agree on this point!

I am not you, you are not me.

1.1 Questioner: Do you have a specific purpose, and if so, could you tell us something of what your purpose is?

Ra: I am Ra. We communicate now. We are those who are of the Law of One. In our vibration the polarities are harmonized; the complexities are simplified; the paradoxes have a solution. We are one. That is our nature and our purpose.

10.14 Questioner: For the general development of the reader of this book, could you state some of the practices or exercises to perform to produce an acceleration toward the Law of One?

Ra: I am Ra.

(snip)

Exercise Two. The universe is one being.

It seems that we are both separate and ONE. A paradox? Ra stated that paradoxes have solutions.

1.5 Questioner: (The question was lost because the questioner was sitting too far from the tape recorder to be recorded.)

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define the infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

A discreet universe on all levels would be impossible in my opinion because there could be no polarity like there could be no position if there were not a point where the differences become discrete.

Perhaps the differences are discrete, and the similarities discreet...? Could either term be used to describe the whole? I think not. I think any word can be used to describe only an aspect of the UniVerse, not the whole.

Is the glass of water half empty or half full?

I actually agree with you that discrete was more likely Ra's intended word in that context (unless, of course, the multi-layered nuance of meaning was intentional, for the purpose of getting us to think and to delve ever deeper). But, I've already attempted to clarify that it didn't change my point regarding the validity of multiple interpretations, so I will leave it at that.

Hey, on a related note, check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_vpEyE6rug

This is a BBC video on M Theory. Very cool stuff!

36.4 Questioner: Do I understand from this then that the Higher Self or Oversoul may break down into numerous units if the experience is required to what we would call simultaneously experience different types of catalysts and then oversee these experiences?

Ra: I am Ra. This is a statement we cannot say to be correct or incorrect due to the confusions of what you call time. True simultaneity is available only when all things are seen to be occurring at once. This overshadows the concept of which you speak. The concept of various parts of the being living experiences of varying natures simultaneously is not precisely accurate due to your understanding that this would indicate that this was occurring with true simultaneity. This is not the case.

The case is from universe to universe and parallel existences can then be programmed by the Higher Self, given the information available from the mind/body/spirit complex totality regarding the probability/possibility vortices at any crux.

And, I now submit this for discussion:

20.26 Questioner: I make the assumption that if maximum efficiency had been achieved in this 25,000 year period the entities would have polarized either toward service to self or toward service to others, one or the other. This would have made them harvestable at the end of that 25,000 year period in which case they would have had to move to another planet because this one would have been third density for 50,000 more years. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. Let us untangle your assumption which is complex and correct in part.

The original desire is that entities seek and become one. If entities can do this in a moment, they may go forward in a moment, and, thus, were this to occur in a major cycle, indeed, the third-density planet would be vacated at the end of that cycle.

It is, however, more towards the median or mean, shall we say, of third-density developments throughout the one infinite universe that there be a small harvest after the first cycle; the remainder having significantly polarized, the second cycle having a much larger harvest; the remainder being even more significantly polarized, the third cycle culminating the process and the harvest being completed.


OK, so what do we have here? If everyone became harvestable in a moment in a major cycle, the 3D planet would be vacated.

So, if that happens in 2012, if our entire planet harmonizes in one fine moment of inspiration, being that it's the end of a major cycle, then yes, we'll all go poof and the planet will be vacated.

That's pretty clear, imho.

Now, aside from that, imo remote, possibility, what happens if we don't all harmonize in one fine strong moment of inspiration? We then move to Plan B, also described by Ra in the above quote: the remainder being even more significantly polarized, the third cycle culminating the process and the harvest being completed.

Then, we are back to the question: If the harvest is complete, which presumably it would be, is the planet then vacated? And is that completion instantaneous? How does this reconcile with the other quote in which Ra states that 4D bodies start manifesting thru the normal process of evolution?

I just don't think anyone can conclusively state either position, as there are valid interpretations on both sides. Being that this is regarding a future event, I doubt that Ra would want to state it so clearly that there is no room for doubt. That would be a violation of Free Will, would it not?

Look at how this discussion itself is a catalyst for deeper understanding, not to mention harmonious interaction while disagreeing. Maintaining love and respect while disagreeing...do you people realize how awesome that is??? What we have been doing here at B4, and in this thread in particular, is no small feat! I know from experience that such respectful disagreement is rare indeed, especially when discussing matters of such importance as this small issue of the fate of our planet.

I don't think Ra would have been intentionally confusing, but I do wonder at their choice of words such as the homonym discrete/discreet...I would surmise that there might even be intentional, multiple levels of meaning, just waiting for us to discover.