I am Ra. No.

[Rolci]

Although Ra seem to answer in one way or another every single question, ot at least comment in some way in the few cases when they won't (as in the case of


Questioner: Are there any examples of sixth-density negatively polarized
Wanderers in our historical past?
Ra: I am Ra. This information could be harmful. We withhold it."

where they at least give an explanation for refusing to provide information, there are two cases where they decline the queries with absolutely no comment or explanation. The first such case appears in book 1:

Questioner: Is there a “best way” to meditate?
Ra: I am Ra. No.

Then in book 2, following a reply of over 30 lines that includes reference to the importance of meditation, Don pops the simple question again that prompts an abrupt and unexpected shortness of a reply.

Questioner: Will you recommend a technique of meditation?
Ra: I am Ra. No.

There are several cases when they refuse to give an answer, but in ALL of those cases they provide an explanation - could be harmful, law of confusion, intervening material needed, etc. Except these two, which are essentially the same, but also different enough for there to be a chance of a slightly different reply (the sessions are over 11 weeks apart) with at least some comment at least for the second one. Yet we have these two simple No's. I understand why they're a no and not a yes. But not even a voluntary listing of ways and techniques (they do provide that information regarding techniques in another reply though, so obviously not a "secret", and they often add further unrequested comments voluntarily) nor any comment whatsoever. Has this stood out for anyone else? Any thoughts as to why no comment at all? Might be trivial, but then again could be on to something.

[Nau7ik]

In both cases when “No” was given, Don was asking for information that infringed on the free will of the questioner. That simple “no” tell us something. If there is no “best” way to meditate, then to recommend a meditation technique would be to place more importance on one technique than another. The simple “no” response is all that is needed, imo.

And from my experience, jumping into meditation yourself and developing your technique and practice is a very good thing! One is learning to walk on his metaphysical two feet, per se. This is one of the reason why I love and respect Ra: they encourage and motivate us to realize our own power; to make our own choices. They encourage us to do the inner work.

[Rolci]

to recommend a meditation technique would be to place more importance on one technique than another.

The answer that Ra give the the VERY NEXT question following that simple "no" reads:

"Each of the two types of meditation is useful for a particular reason. The passive meditation involving the clearing of the mind, the emptying of the mental jumble which is characteristic of mind complex activity among your peoples, is efficacious for those whose goal is to achieve an inner silence as a base from which to listen to the Creator. This is an useful and helpful tool and is by far the most generally useful type of meditation as opposed to contemplation or prayer.
The type of meditation which may be called visualization has as its goal not that which is contained in the meditation itself. Visualization is the tool of the adept. Those who learn to hold visual images in mind are developing an inner concentrative power that can transcend boredom and discomfort. When this ability has become crystallized in an adept the adept may then do polarizing in consciousness without external action which can effect the planetary consciousness. This is the reason for the existence of the so-called White Magician. Only those wishing to pursue the conscious raising of planetary vibration will find visualization to be a particularly satisfying typevof meditation.
Contemplation or the consideration in a meditative state of an inspiring image or text is extremely useful also among your peoples, and the faculty of will called praying is also of a potentially helpful nature. Whether it is
indeed an helpful activity depends quite totally upon the intentions and objects of the one who prays."

As you see they show no reluctance AT ALL to offer a long-winded explanation, much more than was necessary. However, if they truly wanted to preserve as much free will as possible, they would have instead used at least added that there are further modalities, indeed, an infinite spectrum that does not necessarily need to be broken up into categories.

The answer they give to the question previous to the "no" answer is even longer than the above quote. Hence my puzzlement at the uniquely short answer offering no explanation or comment as to why. I would have loved Don to ask: "Why not?"

[kristina]

Although Ra seem to answer in one way or another every single question, ot at least comment in some way in the few cases when they won't (as in the case of


Questioner: Are there any examples of sixth-density negatively polarized
Wanderers in our historical past?
Ra: I am Ra. This information could be harmful. We withhold it."

where they at least give an explanation for refusing to provide information, there are two cases where they decline the queries with absolutely no comment or explanation. The first such case appears in book 1:

Questioner: Is there a “best way” to meditate?
Ra: I am Ra. No.

Then in book 2, following a reply of over 30 lines that includes reference to the importance of meditation, Don pops the simple question again that prompts an abrupt and unexpected shortness of a reply.

Questioner: Will you recommend a technique of meditation?
Ra: I am Ra. No.

There are several cases when they refuse to give an answer, but in ALL of those cases they provide an explanation - could be harmful, law of confusion, intervening material needed, etc. Except these two, which are essentially the same, but also different enough for there to be a chance of a slightly different reply (the sessions are over 11 weeks apart) with at least some comment at least for the second one. Yet we have these two simple No's. I understand why they're a no and not a yes. But not even a voluntary listing of ways and techniques (they do provide that information regarding techniques in another reply though, so obviously not a "secret", and they often add further unrequested comments voluntarily) nor any comment whatsoever. Has this stood out for anyone else? Any thoughts as to why no comment at all? Might be trivial, but then again could be on to something.

*Regarding the question, "is there a best way to meditate?" For who? I think you may have to process the way in which the question is being assimilated. Is there a best way to meditate? Quite frankly, no. No there isn't.
*Regarding the question, "Will you recommend a technique of meditation?" That is a tiny breach in the Law of Confusion. If you contemplate it for a moment you'll see that it's clear that they don't want to recommend a type of meditation, rather they want them to discover a technique based on their own freewill, experience and so forth.

[kristina]

to recommend a meditation technique would be to place more importance on one technique than another.

The answer that Ra give the the VERY NEXT question following that simple "no" reads:

"Each of the two types of meditation is useful for a particular reason. The passive meditation involving the clearing of the mind, the emptying of the mental jumble which is characteristic of mind complex activity among your peoples, is efficacious for those whose goal is to achieve an inner silence as a base from which to listen to the Creator. This is an useful and helpful tool and is by far the most generally useful type of meditation as opposed to contemplation or prayer.

****** They are attempting to explain why these particular "examples" not recommendations are useful to some.

The type of meditation which may be called visualization has as its goal not that which is contained in the meditation itself. Visualization is the tool of the adept. Those who learn to hold visual images in mind are developing an inner concentrative power that can transcend boredom and discomfort. When this ability has become crystallized in an adept the adept may then do polarizing in consciousness without external action which can effect the planetary consciousness. This is the reason for the existence of the so-called White Magician. Only those wishing to pursue the conscious raising of planetary vibration will find visualization to be a particularly satisfying typevof meditation.
Contemplation or the consideration in a meditative state of an inspiring image or text is extremely useful also among your peoples, and the faculty of will called praying is also of a potentially helpful nature. Whether it is
indeed an helpful activity depends quite totally upon the intentions and objects of the one who prays."

***** Again they are explaining techniques that have been used and have had results but are clearly NOT making a recommendation but are using examples.

As you see they show no reluctance AT ALL to offer a long-winded explanation, much more than was necessary. However, if they truly wanted to preserve as much free will as possible, they would have instead used at least added that there are further modalities, indeed, an infinite spectrum that does not necessarily need to be broken up into categories.

The answer they give to the question previous to the "no" answer is even longer than the above quote. Hence my puzzlement at the uniquely short answer offering no explanation or comment as to why. I would have loved Don to ask: "Why not?"

[Nau7ik]

to recommend a meditation technique would be to place more importance on one technique than another.

The answer that Ra give the the VERY NEXT question following that simple "no" reads:

"Each of the two types of meditation is useful for a particular reason. The passive meditation involving the clearing of the mind, the emptying of the mental jumble which is characteristic of mind complex activity among your peoples, is efficacious for those whose goal is to achieve an inner silence as a base from which to listen to the Creator. This is an useful and helpful tool and is by far the most generally useful type of meditation as opposed to contemplation or prayer.
The type of meditation which may be called visualization has as its goal not that which is contained in the meditation itself. Visualization is the tool of the adept. Those who learn to hold visual images in mind are developing an inner concentrative power that can transcend boredom and discomfort. When this ability has become crystallized in an adept the adept may then do polarizing in consciousness without external action which can effect the planetary consciousness. This is the reason for the existence of the so-called White Magician. Only those wishing to pursue the conscious raising of planetary vibration will find visualization to be a particularly satisfying typevof meditation.
Contemplation or the consideration in a meditative state of an inspiring image or text is extremely useful also among your peoples, and the faculty of will called praying is also of a potentially helpful nature. Whether it is
indeed an helpful activity depends quite totally upon the intentions and objects of the one who prays."

As you see they show no reluctance AT ALL to offer a long-winded explanation, much more than was necessary. However, if they truly wanted to preserve as much free will as possible, they would have instead used at least added that there are further modalities, indeed, an infinite spectrum that does not necessarily need to be broken up into categories.

The answer they give to the question previous to the "no" answer is even longer than the above quote. Hence my puzzlement at the uniquely short answer offering no explanation or comment as to why. I would have loved Don to ask: "Why not?"

It wouldn’t say it unnecessary just that Ra is giving a scope of the subject so that we can make an informed choice on how we shall proceed. I personally started meditation by doing the silent type. Resting in the silence, silent and clear mind and a still body. I did this for years before I started to make use of the contemplative meditation. Maybe some prefer the contemplative meditation. There’s no best way to meditate. It’s a subjective matter.

This is just like later on in the contact when Don was questioning about the archetypal mind. What’s the best way to study the archetypal mind? How did Ra reach harvestability with their study of the archetypal mind? Ra refused to answer because it would’ve placed greater importance on their personal method. Instead Ra gave a layout on how to proceed with the study; we can choose to study astrology, the Tarot, or the Tree of Life. One of these will be more attractive than the others to the seeker.

There’s another instance where Ra gives a “no” and then abruptly ends the contact, in session 104. I made a commentary on that session in the forum if you’re interested in reading it. Basically, I felt that Don was “detuning” the contact with his insistence on specific information. He was frustrated (?) with the advice Ra was giving. It wasn’t what he wanted. He then asked a question which imo was so off that Ra simply said “no” and proceeded to end the contact with a closing statement. That statement was a subtle way of reminding Don of what’s important. Just my opinion and interpretation though.

[unity100]

Questioner: Is there a “best way” to meditate?
Ra: I am Ra. No.

Then in book 2, following a reply of over 30 lines that includes reference to the importance of meditation, Don pops the simple question again that prompts an abrupt and unexpected shortness of a reply.

Questioner: Will you recommend a technique of meditation?
Ra: I am Ra. No.

Might be trivial, but then again could be on to something.

Factual information does not need details, as you will see when you look into the above quotes in a simpler way:

There is no best way to meditate since every entity's psyche and circumstances are different. There is no best way for the same person for all times or all ages either.

Will Ra recommend a technique for meditation?

No, they wont.

Because, well, they wont.

[Rolci]

Thanks for the comments. I have not ceased to find these two replies of Ra highly unusual compared to all the other multi-worded ones with overflowing free commentary, even when a simple "no" would have sufficed. ("We tread close to the...")

I am Ra. No. (I almost see them giving a frowning look of stubborn admonishment: don't EVER ask us that question, ever again!)

[unity100]

I am Ra. No. (I almost see them giving a frowning look of stubborn admonishment: don't EVER ask us that question, ever again!)

Its likely that you are reading from a perspective of Angloamerican mainstream culture - where directly refusing someone/something, or saying that they are wrong etc, are considered impolite. Whereas in a majority of cultures in the world, 'no' doesnt carry such connotations.

Ra was not from any Angloamerican country.

[ZW929]

I am Ra. No. (I almost see them giving a frowning look of stubborn admonishment: don't EVER ask us that question, ever again!)

Its likely that you are reading from a perspective of Angloamerican mainstream culture - where directly refusing someone/something, or saying that they are wrong etc, are considered impolite. Whereas in a majority of cultures in the world, 'no' doesnt carry such connotations.

Ra was not from any Angloamerican country.

uhmmm, I'm like..Ra.. so like, uhm....no.

*sips 6d starbucks*

[3-24-2022]

Do I want to see this forum close?

No.