Why do Don and Ra talk about a lenticular galaxy when our galaxy is spiral?

[Tenet Nosce]

1) Please differentiate between 'elliptical' and 'lenticular', then see that depending on the way you are looking at the galaxy in a 3d plane, a 'spiral' galaxy can be seen as 'lenticular' sideways (lenticular meaning bulging thing/mass at the center like shape of a lentil.).

Then do not equate 'lenticular' with 'elliptical'. 'Lenticular' represents a 3d plane, 'elliptical' could represent a 2d trajectory as well, as an example.

Elliptical? I thought we were talking about spiral! LOL. Look all I am trying to say here is that maybe it was a slip. I don't see why it is such a big deal. When we have to start going into all manner of convoluted explanations to preserve the supposed infallibility of the contact, it starts to become a little absurd. Spiral, lenticular, elliptical... I don't think there is any hidden mystery for us to discern. Ra only used the word "lenticular" one time. Don used it seven times.

All this demonstrates, in my opinion, is that distortions in the query lead to distortions in the reply. If Ra stopped Don to correct every little distortion in his mind, there wouldn't be anything useful left for us to read.

2) If you want to compare other channeling narratives with the Ra material, I encourage you to do some more research. Metaphysically speaking, the depth of not only the way Ra material was conducted but the incredibly intricate 'circular' agreements from beginning to end and the 'explosive' mind openings occurring at random times made this experience worth an incarnation by itself for me.

Well seeing as how I have studied the Seth material, the Urantia Book, the Keys of Enoch, the Cassiopaeans, Sheldan Nidle, Matthew's Messages, Barbara Marciniak, SaLuSa, Master Hilarion, and also for several months attended in person channeling sessions with Dr. Peebles through Ann Albers, I am not sure what "more research" you would suggest.

Out of all the channeled works and messages I have encountered, the Ra material is by far one of the best. I would place Ra, the Cassiopeans, and Seth in a class unto themselves. However to operate from the assumption that the Ra contact was infallible, or that every single word in it is literally true, would be taking it too far. Even L/L Research agrees that the material is colored by the mind of the channel, so it kind of boggles my mind when somebody else comes in and tries to argue that every last minutia must be correct.

I have heard several people object when I say that it is helpful to increase one’s ability to articulate concepts and find just the right word by conscious thought. Such people have the notion that the person channeling asymptotically approaches a pure contact, with no contribution by the channel. My opinion is that about one quarter of most good channeling is contributed by the channel, both the channel’s words and experiences. This may be an incorrect view; however, the great bulk of channeled information is produced by those in a light trance, or at least those not asleep, and it seems to me that as it is impossible to eliminate the personal factor from channeling, it surely would be considered desirable by both the instrument and the one who offers the channeled material to the instrument for the instrument to have a disciplined and predictable share, obviously in the minority, but not insignificant, in the material. If you are a new channel and one of your objections to channeling is that you fear that you are channeling yourself, attempt to lessen the influence your personal thinking may have on the channeling, but-and again, this is only my opinion-do not try to eliminate it, for you are a valuable part of the channeling process.

[Raman]

Elliptical? I thought we were talking about spiral! LOL. Look all I am trying to say here is that maybe it was a slip. I don't see why it is such a big deal. When we have to start going into all manner of convoluted explanations to preserve the supposed infallibility of the contact, it starts to become a little absurd. Spiral, lenticular, elliptical... I don't think there is any hidden mystery for us to discern. Ra only used the word "lenticular" one time. Don used it seven times.

All this demonstrates, in my opinion, is that distortions in the query lead to distortions in the reply. If Ra stopped Don to correct every little distortion in his mind, there wouldn't be anything useful left for us to read.

No. We are talking about elliptical in response to zenmaster's comment just a few posts above and that it was noted that people (including you) are confusing elliptical with lenticular and making that concept one and the same which is not. Nothing to do how many times Don or my grandmother uses the concept. I repeat: a spiral galaxy is lenticular if seen sideways. Also neither Don or Ra used 'elliptical'.

Well seeing as how I have studied the Seth material, the Urantia Book, the Keys of Enoch, the Cassiopaeans, Sheldan Nidle, Matthew's Messages, Barbara Marciniak, SaLuSa, Master Hilarion, and also for several months attended in person channeling sessions with Dr. Peebles through Ann Albers, I am not sure what "more research" you would suggest.

Out of all the channeled works and messages I have encountered, the Ra material is by far one of the best. I would place Ra, the Cassiopeans, and Seth in a class unto themselves. However to operate from the assumption that the Ra contact was infallible, or that every single word in it is literally true, would be taking it too far. Even L/L Research agrees that the material is colored by the mind of the channel, so it kind of boggles my mind when somebody else comes in and tries to argue that every last minutia must be correct.

It is not the same category Cassiopeans and Ra or even Q'uo and Ra. Cassiopeans for me are not even a worth a second look, for example since the dynamics of the group is bitter and power based in my opinion. However, this is my opinion and you are Ok taking whatever resonates with you. It is more of a 'spiritual' research.

[Diana]

My suggestion is that Ra meant that our galaxy is dualistic.

Have you ever seen the pictures that appear with one image looked at from the left, and another looked at from the right? That's called lenticular. Two images, existing simultaneously, but separated by viewpoint.

[Tenet Nosce]

No. We are talking about elliptical in response to zenmaster's comment just a few posts above and that it was noted that people (including you) are confusing elliptical with lenticular and making that concept one and the same which is not. Nothing to do how many times Don or my grandmother uses the concept. I repeat: a spiral galaxy is lenticular if seen sideways. Also neither Don or Ra used 'elliptical'.

Raman, if you go back and look, you will find that I didn't use the word "elliptical" until you put the word into my mouth. You apparently assumed that my post was a response to Zenmaster's, which it was not. It was a response to the thread in general. For future (and past) reference, if I am replying to a particular post, I will use the quote function.

It is not the same category Cassiopeans and Ra or even Q'uo and Ra. Cassiopeans for me are not even a worth a second look, for example since the dynamics of the group is bitter and power based in my opinion. However, this is my opinion and you are Ok taking whatever resonates with you. It is more of a 'spiritual' research.

Well that's fine. To me, anything is worth a second look. What I have found in my personal experience is that when my mind wants to reject something out of hand or I have a knee-jerk negative emotional reaction, it is usually a sign that I am bumping up against some programming. Typically, but not in all cases, if I "push through" to the other side I find something valuable.

Some people read channeled material and just zoom in on the replies. Which, again, is fine. My study of channeled material takes the entire thing in context, and also considers the development of channeling techniques over time.

So, for example, even if Ra was coming from a higher level than Q'uo is, the appearance of Q'uo represents an evolution of the channeling process. Q'uo makes sure to put in the disclaimer at the beginning of each session, where Ra does not. The C's represent the evolution of a certain element of conversation in the contact which is not present in other channelings. This again, represents an evolution of process, even if Ra is the wiser of the two contacts, and even if the group is totally off their rockers.

[Also, it seems to be easily overlooked that Ra, Q'uo, the C's, and whomever else is being channeled must know each other.]

Yes, of course I keep in mind the group dynamics in terms of the credibility of the information offered- including L/L Research. Some folks would rather ignore the uncomfortable facts that Don killed himself, and that Carla has debilitating health conditions, as if it is possible to divorce the group from the material. Others seem to have some kind of idea that death and sickness is some kind of noble suffering or "price" that is paid for a "pure" contact such as Ra. This is a bit twisted, in my opinion. I do not view these outcomes in any way necessary, and think it is tragic that things went down that way. If I ever develop the ability to jump timelines at will, one of my first experiments will be to see what happened on the timeline that Don did not commit suicide.

Ra being Ra, obviously knew what could have been done to stop the negative contact. But they didn't offer the information. Why? Because the group didn't ask. They just kept digging their heels in on the "protection" rituals, and fussing about the appurtenances, rather than investigating the possibility that "love and light" was not sufficient to stave off such an attack. Maybe there was an element missing, the presence of which would have resulted in a different outcome. AND seeing as how we are possibly on the precipice of a major leap forward in our own consciousness, it might BEHOOVE us to consider the possibility that "love and light" is not the whole story. For example, I have noticed Q'uo to be using the word "power" more often as of late...

The group, bless their hearts, were doing the best they knew. BUT- it was based on a certain assumption, the premises of which were taken as sacrosant and never questioned. It kind of reminds me of episodes of Intervention when the addict is in a religious family, and they just keep praying and praying to Jesus to heal their child instead of getting them the help they actually need.

They are so hopelessly lost in their "faith" in Jesus as Savior that they are in total denial of the simple fact that their prayers are not working. Yet rather than question their methodology, they just dig their heels in and pray harder and harder. Meanwhile, the addict slips further into oblivion.

[Tenet Nosce]

That follow-up was related to the fallibility of the stellar/galactic evolution model currently in use, and the fact that Larson suggested a more accurate model decades ago. Isn't it amazing that something can be 5 times younger than previously thought and go unnoticed? That's a 'broken' cosmology.

Yes, I think that is significant. For example, I check in with ScienceDaily.com on a near daily basis, and the number of discoveries coming out that completely SHATTER our understanding of how the universe really works is stunning! Now how could Ra have possibly communicated an idea that was 30 years past our current understanding at the time? They couldn't, and so had to use the closest vernacular they could find in the awareness of Don and Carla's minds.

As far as Ra being fallible, sure. To merely put concepts to words is to necessarily, automatically become fallible. The key or art with effective communication is to reduce the chance of misunderstanding. What 'truth' can you really offer with the constraints of the channeling format, considering the biases of the reader? Each word used has a slightly different meaning and emphasis placed in the reader's mind.

Agreed. This seems somewhat obvious to me, but apparently is a sticking point for others.

---

My suggestion is that Ra meant that our galaxy is dualistic.

Certainly there is something that we do not yet understand.

Have you ever seen the pictures that appear with one image looked at from the left, and another looked at from the right? That's called lenticular. Two images, existing simultaneously, but separated by viewpoint.

That's an interesting angle! (Cheesy pun intended) I downloaded a program called Stellarium that allows one to view the galaxy from any angle imaginable. Fascinating!

---

Yes words are just signposts. They're never the thing in itself.

Great observation! And highly relevant...

[βαθμιαίος]

Ra being Ra, obviously knew what could have been done to stop the negative contact. But they didn't offer the information. Why? Because the group didn't ask. They just kept digging their heels in on the "protection" rituals, and fussing about the appurtenances, rather than investigating the possibility that "love and light" was not sufficient to stave off such an attack. Maybe there was an element missing, the presence of which would have resulted in a different outcome. AND seeing as how we are possibly on the precipice of a major leap forward in our own consciousness, it might BEHOOVE us to consider the possibility that "love and light" is not the whole story. For example, I have noticed Q'uo to be using the word "power" more often as of late...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think Carla, Don, and Jim were quite the rubes you seem to think they were.

What do you think could have been done to stop the negative contact that wasn't being done?

[Monica]

What I have found in my personal experience is that when my mind wants to reject something out of hand or I have a knee-jerk negative emotional reaction, it is usually a sign that I am bumping up against some programming. Typically, but not in all cases, if I "push through" to the other side I find something valuable.

Agreed! In many cases that is true. Just the process of choosing to be open to something we previously weren't open to, can be very beneficial.

At the same time, if we look at something without a strong emotional charge, and simply discern it to be not in alignment with our core principles, ie. it doesn't resonate, then it's reasonable and acceptable to reject it.

I looked at the Cassiopean info with an open mind, and found a number of reasons why it wasn't acceptable to me. That is my personal opinion. If others find it useful, then that's fine. We don't all resonate to the same things. Sometimes it's a knee-jerk reaction due to some biases, but other times it might simply be that the material isn't appropriate for us, for whatever reason. What I mean is, if the info doesn't resonate with us, that doesn't necessarily mean we didn't look at it with an open mind, or that we necessarily have 'issues' or 'blockages' about it.

Some people read channeled material and just zoom in on the replies. Which, again, is fine. My study of channeled material takes the entire thing in context, and also considers the development of channeling techniques over time.

That sounds like a good way to approach it! There is such a huge amount of channeled info out there, though, that we can't possibly do that with all of them. Sometimes we need to just briefly scan them, to see if we even want to study them in more depth at all. There's simply not enough time to study all of them in depth, so we have to have some way of deciding which ones to pursue.

So, for example, even if Ra was coming from a higher level than Q'uo is, the appearance of Q'uo represents an evolution of the channeling process. Q'uo makes sure to put in the disclaimer at the beginning of each session, where Ra does not. The C's represent the evolution of a certain element of conversation in the contact which is not present in other channelings. This again, represents an evolution of process, even if Ra is the wiser of the two contacts, and even if the group is totally off their rockers.

That's an interesting idea, but I'd have to say I don't think it was the case. I think it's more likely that they were simply different kinds of contacts, with different objectives. Also, it must be kept in mind that the Ra contact was a trance channeling, whereas the others aren't, so that is an important consideration.

[Also, it seems to be easily overlooked that Ra, Q'uo, the C's, and whomever else is being channeled must know each other.]

Ha, undoubtedly!

That doesn't automatically validate any particular source, though, because the channels still all color/distort the info with their own biases, and in some cases, the entity they think they're channeling isn't even who they're channeling. Discernment is always the key.

Yes, of course I keep in mind the group dynamics in terms of the credibility of the information offered- including L/L Research. Some folks would rather ignore the uncomfortable facts that Don killed himself, and that Carla has debilitating health conditions, as if it is possible to divorce the group from the material. Others seem to have some kind of idea that death and sickness is some kind of noble suffering or "price" that is paid for a "pure" contact such as Ra. This is a bit twisted, in my opinion. I do not view these outcomes in any way necessary, and think it is tragic that things went down that way. If I ever develop the ability to jump timelines at will, one of my first experiments will be to see what happened on the timeline that Don did not commit suicide.

I understand your points, and I agree that sometimes events are just tragic, and attempts to accept those events end up going too far, to the point of painting them as optimal, when they really weren't optimal. In this case, it's a very sticky situation, because we all love the person involved, and this tragedy wasn't something we read about on the news, but someone in an intimate relationship with her. So we must temper our interest in analyzing the situation for the purpose of learning from it, with our respect for Carla's and Jim's private lives. This might explain why there isn't a whole lot of talk about it.

I do understand your greater point, and would like to address that in a generic sense. I'm reminded of my Christian friends whose only consolation after losing a family member was, "It must have been God's will" which really doesn't cut it for me. But that is where they're at. They don't have the same tools (such as understanding karma, reincarnation, free will, etc.) that we have.

Ra being Ra, obviously knew what could have been done to stop the negative contact. But they didn't offer the information. Why? Because the group didn't ask.

Don did indeed ask. I remember Ra responded with, "you could end the contact" which wasn't acceptable to the group.

Maybe there was an element missing, the presence of which would have resulted in a different outcome. AND seeing as how we are possibly on the precipice of a major leap forward in our own consciousness, it might BEHOOVE us to consider the possibility that "love and light" is not the whole story. For example, I have noticed Q'uo to be using the word "power" more often as of late...

Agreed. Power is energy and not good or bad. It all depends on how it is used. Q'uo has told us many times that we have no concept of just how powerful we really are.

The group, bless their hearts, were doing the best they knew. BUT- it was based on a certain assumption, the premises of which were taken as sacrosant and never questioned. It kind of reminds me of episodes of Intervention when the addict is in a religious family, and they just keep praying and praying to Jesus to heal their child instead of getting them the help they actually need.

They are so hopelessly lost in their "faith" in Jesus as Savior that they are in total denial of the simple fact that their prayers are not working. Yet rather than question their methodology, they just dig their heels in and pray harder and harder. Meanwhile, the addict slips further into oblivion.

That commonly occurs. Carla and Jim would surely be the first to admit that there is always something to learn from any situation, and what happened is no different. At the same time, none of us can really say what they could have or should have done differently, because we weren't in their shoes. All we can do is learn from others' experiences and try to apply those lessons in our own lives. Our opinions about the choices of others don't really matter, really.

[Tenet Nosce]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think Carla, Don, and Jim were quite the rubes you seem to think they were.

Rubes? LOL never heard that word before! Had to look it up. But no, I don't seem them as rubes. I will come back to address your question, but I just wanted to clear that up. If I had thought that, I would have tossed the Law of One out in the trash heaps of all the other new age mumbo jumbo I've discarded over the years, and certainly wouldn't be investing so much time and energy here on this forum.

I'm here because of my own personal experiences with negative greeting, and the extreme fallout which occurred with a friend when he was attacked as a vector to cause harm to me after the entity failed to take me out directly.

Also, I am going to start a new thread because this discussion has gotten WAY off from lenticular galaxies...

[zenmaster]

Yes words are just signposts. They're never the thing in itself.

My understanding is that 4D is about learning 'the thing in itself' - i.e. the 'noumenal', Plato's 'forms', etc. I say this because even in 3D, it is possible to communicate raw, unattached, uncommitted concepts without the conventional, mechanical/mental interpretation. It takes a degree of reciprocal honesty to connect at that level, however. And currently, there is too much fear for it - but that type of self-to-self recognition or intersubjective communication seems to be the 'next step'. I have a feeling there are many such abilities that will become automatically obvious in 4D, which are, in fact, already available in 3D.

[4Dsunrise]

Raman says:

I repeat: a spiral galaxy is lenticular if seen sideways. Also neither Don or Ra used 'elliptical'.

And zenmaster just above says:

My understanding is that 4D is about learning 'the thing in itself' - i.e. the 'noumenal', Plato's 'forms', etc.

I agree that our Milky Way is of spiral (face on) and lenticular (edge on) shape and the latest infrared/ultraviolet telescopic views display the more 'noumenal' matter creating an elliptical/lenticular halo as seen edge on.

So the Ra group's 6D 'noumenal-sensing' visual apparatus probably picked up on this.

And we might, in 4D, get to see a few of these 'invisible planets' that Ra talked about, or perhaps the Sphere Being alliance? I could see a less dramatic version of a dozen or so sphere being-type crafts in satellite orbit around the Earth in early 4D.

[Dekalb_Blues]

Rabbi Raditz of Poland was a very short rabbi with a long beard, who was said to have inspired many pogroms with his sense of humor. One of his disciples asked, "Who did God like better, Moses or Abraham?"
"Abraham," the Zaddik said.
"But Moses led the Israelites to the Promised Land," said the disciple.
"All right, so Moses," the Zaddik answered.

-- Woody Allen, "Hassidic Tales, with A Guide to Their Interpretation by the Noted Scholar", in Without Feathers (1975)

 

 



Just discovered: the Fetus Galaxy! -- this will overturn the accepted astrophysical canon of possible galactic form:

http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/441...man-fetus/
Following a bold cosmological hypothesis teased out of the enigmatic data collected from this unexpected phenomenon, astronomers are currently seeking the now-very-probable Bat Boy Galaxy.

Typical scene in my room moments before posting on B4th:

[BlatzAdict]

look at this picture really closely of a spiral galaxy...

there is no actual curves, look, they are all straight lines and then they change direction. look, there are no curves, NO TRUE SPIRAL. 


which means our current understanding of space... is limited!


you can even see the asteroid belt, doesn't follow a circular orbit around the sun! most of the asteroids follow a triangle shaped orbit! 

https://imgur.com/gallery/pUx9Kka

See for yourself!

[Mahakali]

Ra never used the word "lenticular" except as a reference to the universe as a whole, and Ra didn't offer information unless Ra was asked.

It probably would have been difficult for Ra to correct every error in human math and science, which isn't perfect today, and less so back then.