Harvest: Do The Math

[AnthroHeart]

This past weekend was definitely a testing time for me. I had to let go of some of my high vibration and denseness because the catalyst was coming on too strong and I ended up exploding in a fit of anger. Didn't help that someone around me was being 10X more negative than usual.

But yeah, I agree because the veil is so dense, we can grow tremendously. Probably what I deal with in this last year alone equals 10,000 years or more in 4D. I'm trying not to make decisions that are ego based, and thinking through the impact of what decisions I might make. I have one where someone in my life refuses to pay to repair for some damage they have done since they say that I own the property. I'm trying not to make a decision that would be about "getting even", but also don't want them to walk all over me either.

[StormShadow]

Hmm. But you cannot say that the resulting image will be less beautiful simply based on its degree of variance from perfect balance. I think you're imposing the human judgement system on something that, in the end, is above human judgement, aren't you? Art appreciation is subjective even among fellow humans.

Certainly, all the lines will be affected. But who can say that they will not be affected for the better?

Carmina Burana would be a much less interesting piece if it didn't start quietly then suddenly ramp up in the middle. Unremarkable and forgettable, in fact. It is because of, not in spite of, the imbalance in the composition, that the piece is so beautiful and moving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ71CQiDBpY&feature=fvst

Also see: Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. Another great (and moving!) example of harmony near the end made all the more beautiful by the discordance at the beginning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO8kFHCXiEg

this is not a matter of positive or negative or lessons. this is a matter of the grand play, grand act.

think what picture you see when you look back from the points nearing infinity in 7d as a tapestry. it is something that is woven with the participation of all entities.

and in that tapestry, from a certain point, there is less green color. because these entities were not harvested. and in return, because the yellow threads did not turn into green threads at this point, they dont turn to blue threads at a later point in the tapestry. since these threads remained yellow, everything has now changed to accommodate it as such. not only those threads themselves, but all the other threads in the tapestry.

and when those threads enter the green color at a later point in the tapestry, the parts they have not colored with green, will remain uncolored with green. regardless of the sharpness, strikingness of the green they bring at a later point into the tapestry.

it may be argued that, the resulting tapestry is still a unique tapestry and equal in value. in a sense, it is true. but, first imagine a piece of tapestry that is in rainbow colors uniformly in every thread. then, imagine the similar tapestry, but with a big yellow spot (or any other color) in one point, and a big blue spot in another random point and so on. imagine the number of such random spots of color increase. its not a rainbow tapestry anymore. the more imbalanced it gets, the less rainbow like it becomes.

multiplicity at any given point increases the variance of any line in the tapestry due to interaction of threads standing side by side. when you introduce a big yellow spot at a point, causing to less yellow color in the next point, you reduce the interactions at those lines in the tapestry, and therefore reduce the situations and things they would create by interacting within each other at those lines. not to mention all of these affect the lines coming later.

[unity100]

Hmm. But you cannot say that the resulting image will be less beautiful simply based on its degree of variance from perfect balance. I think you're imposing the human judgement system on something that, in the end, is above human judgement, aren't you? Art appreciation is subjective even among fellow humans.

actually there is nothing human in this. you cant even start to assess this from a human perspective. you have to start and move from basic spiritual principles :

the entire story of existence is seeking of the balance in state infinite intelligence, which seeks the balance state in infinity. infinite intelligence is discovering what makes infinity what it is.

all entities and existences below this, in turn, are trying to get to the 'first original thought' - as Ra puts it - that was present there at the manifestation of infinite intelligence.

if you look it at that way, we are all looking to balance ourselves to the near-perfect balance infinite intelligence is, and return to that point.

in that respect, imbalance is undesirable. this goes without saying actually, since the whole process of an octave is a balancing process towards its end.

and the bigger imbalance you introduce in early stages of the tapestry, the bigger the need for balancing action in later stages of tapestry.

just like how Ra introduced a huge imbalance into their part of the tapestry in green color in between 3 and 4th densities, and then had to introduce an equally big blue color in order to match these in 5th density.

.....................

it is quite fortunate that you gave examples from music pieces - for, the tapestry is not something that appears in colors - the strings also make voices, which compile into a song. the more balanced the tapestry is, more infinite the interactions in between the strings of the tapestry and more rich and varied the music piece is.

if it was something like carmina burana, it would only express that piece of melody. not anything else. and as we know that there are infinity contained inwards any creation, it means the variations in this existence is also infinite inwards - there are infinite interactions possible in between the existing threads in it.

therefore, the best way for a given tapestry to express its potential in full, it seems it needs to be perfectly balanced. otherwise, one aspect of its richness would take the front stage, while others would fade behind.

this can be told to be remedied by infinite creations and infinite parallel universes. something that is not well expressed in this universe, can be well expressed in another complementing this.

but that doesnt change the principles behind the need for a balanced tapestry - for, if you combine the two imbalanced tapestries towards infinity, you get a balanced tapestry. therefore, the push is apparently towards better balance and infinite variety in color and melody.

[StormShadow]

I agree with - almost - everything you wrote. The part I don't get is why you think that imbalance is undesirable. If it truly was undesirable, then why was it introduced into Creation?

[unity100]

I agree with - almost - everything you wrote. The part I don't get is why you think that imbalance is undesirable. If it truly was undesirable, then why was it introduced into Creation?

that is a deeper question than it appears, and it probably would go way towards infinity, infinite intelligence, and polar opposites.

it seems, for some reason, something happened and something called 'infinite intelligence' came into being. and its becoming also created a lot of focuses for itself, and these continually manifest in heartbeats (big bang/and then completion of the cycle at the end over and over), infinitely balancing themselves and therefore the infinite intelligence by manifesting. because infinity is infinite, and infinite intelligence is not infinity, this is a balancing process that would take infinite amount of time until infinite intelligence discovers how to be totally balanced in order to become infinity.

this evaluates to manifesting infinite manifestations and having infinite experiences in order to complete everything, from our perspective. when infinite experiences are lived, everything gets their counterpart, everything becomes complete, and infinite intelligence becomes infinity.

that point exists near infinity however. it will take infinite time for us to reach there, if you look at it.

[StormShadow]

Interesting enough, yes. But you haven't quite spoken to the question I asked. Why would imbalance be introduced into Creation if it weren't desirable at some level?

[unity100]

Interesting enough, yes. But you haven't quite spoken to the question I asked. Why would imbalance be introduced into Creation if it weren't desirable at some level?

there is no need to 'introduce' any imbalance :

any 'entity' that exists, is not infinite, therefore, its imbalanced. if it comes to full balance, it would became practically nil (would not be affected by any happening or effect or any other thing that exists in the existence) and therefore infinite. the more the entity experiences, the more balanced it becomes and becomes unswayed by previous catalyst. (As explained in the material) this means, the infinite more experience would mean infinite balance, and it would mean that the entity would become impossible to affect by any kind of existing event, situation or concept or entity, in existence.

the very act of 'existing' is an imbalance in itself, because its not in balance with not existing.

hence the infinite creations start with that initial imbalance.

[StormShadow]

No need to introduce from your level, or mine, yes. But if something exists in Creation, it exists because it was introduced, or, if you want to split semantic hairs, you could say that it was allowed to exist by the Creator. Imbalance exists, that much you and I can agree on. But the issue of desirability versus undesirability is extremely subjective. What you may desire may repulse me.

In the same vein, you see imbalance as "undesirable," and a loss to the whole. I don't. And I don't think that the Ra complex did either. In fact, they spoke of concepts like "gain" and "loss" very infrequently, and then usually immediately emphasized that they used them because of linguistic limitations and that there was, in fact, no such thing.

So my point is, I think that you are imposing the human value system - your personal version of the human value system, in fact - on a concept that ultimately transcends human appreciation. I don't believe, when discussing concepts like this grand tapestry woven by each of our experiences across multiple planes of existence, that human concepts like desire, attraction, repulsion, etc. are useful or valid, since we don't know from what kind of mindset we will be perceiving said "tapestry" anyway.

[unity100]

No need to introduce from your level, or mine, yes. But if something exists in Creation, it exists because it was introduced, or, if you want to split semantic hairs, you could say that it was allowed to exist by the Creator. Imbalance exists, that much you and I can agree on. But the issue of desirability versus undesirability is extremely subjective. What you may desire may repulse me.

In the same vein, you see imbalance as "undesirable," and a loss to the whole. I don't. And I don't think that the Ra complex did either. In fact, they spoke of concepts like "gain" and "loss" very infrequently, and then usually immediately emphasized that they used them because of linguistic limitations and that there was, in fact, no such thing.

So my point is, I think that you are imposing the human value system - your personal version of the human value system, in fact - on a concept that ultimately transcends human appreciation. I don't believe, when discussing concepts like this grand tapestry woven by each of our experiences across multiple planes of existence, that human concepts like desire, attraction, repulsion, etc. are useful or valid, since we don't know from what kind of mindset we will be perceiving said "tapestry" anyway.

imbalance is something that comes out with there being more than one entity existing. see, you have whole, you divide it into infinite multiple parts, and there you have infinitely varied infinite number of parts in their imbalance.

'imposing human value system' is your perception here. you think that i am attributing more or less importance to balance/imbalance. there is nothing as such.

the creation we are in, apparently is seeking balance. whatever you may call the process - unification of creations, balancing of existences, this, that - all is from lesser balance towards greater balance here ; you come from a singular atom and go towards octave density by merging with all the other infinitely small imbalances (other entities) in this universe.

therefore, if you look at it from our narrow perspective of our creation, you may say that we are on the 'balance seeking' side of things.

it is possible that on the other side, something exists that seeks imbalance and dispersion. however, this is not our side.

see, now you have two opposite polarities. the flow is from one side to the other, and on the other side, from one side to other. something like that.

however even this is an imbalance - when these two opposites merge, they create a null-effect union, which can be said as perfectly in balance from our side, and perfectly in imbalance from any potential other side.

however, both would be wrong, since the concept of balance does not pass for this state. and in retrospect, it also is valid at the same time. at that point you have infinity.

[StormShadow]

I'm sorry, but I'm not following you. I don't understand how what you offer as explanation can be seen as supporting the point you say it does. Maybe we should stop here. Perhaps you are speaking out of experience that I haven't had yet.

[Raman]

In order for infinity to be infinity again creation ceases to exist in an 'active manner'. However, it would be part of infinity again. It will take an infinity to reach this state.

[StormShadow]

In order for infinity to be infinity again creation ceases to exist in an 'active manner'. However, it would be part of infinity again. It will take an infinity to reach this state.

Great point! Let's stop here.

[Raman]

Why? I was just warming up!

[StormShadow]

That's why we should stop. You just talk and talk, and what you say seems to have nothing to do with what we're discussing. I figure the best thing to do is just drop it, since I can't discern your logic, and I'm feeling irritated since it appears to me that you are ignoring my questions and speaking to other, only tangentially-related, points and expecting me to accept it as supporting your position.

(Sorry - I'm a bit of an Aspie, and any kind of deviation from logic kind of tends to get under my skin.)

Why? I was just warming up!

[unity100]

That's why we should stop. You just talk and talk, and what you say seems to have nothing to do with what we're discussing. I figure the best thing to do is just drop it, since I can't discern your logic, and I'm feeling irritated since it appears to me that you are ignoring my questions and speaking to other, only tangentially-related, points and expecting me to accept it as supporting your position.

(Sorry - I'm a bit of an Aspie, and any kind of deviation from logic kind of tends to get under my skin.)

Why? I was just warming up!

your skin should know that following deviations through logic brings knowledge yet not known.

---

that being said raman indeed seems to be going in a lot of tangents in the last few weeks.

[Raman]

That's why we should stop. You just talk and talk, and what you say seems to have nothing to do with what we're discussing. I figure the best thing to do is just drop it, since I can't discern your logic, and I'm feeling irritated since it appears to me that you are ignoring my questions and speaking to other, only tangentially-related, points and expecting me to accept it as supporting your position.

(Sorry - I'm a bit of an Aspie, and any kind of deviation from logic kind of tends to get under my skin.)

Why? I was just warming up!

Ah, I thought you were kinda joking. Did not mean to leave questions unanswered. Sorry.

I wish I could feel more motivated to write longer and specific answers or posts.

---

That's why we should stop. You just talk and talk, and what you say seems to have nothing to do with what we're discussing. I figure the best thing to do is just drop it, since I can't discern your logic, and I'm feeling irritated since it appears to me that you are ignoring my questions and speaking to other, only tangentially-related, points and expecting me to accept it as supporting your position.

(Sorry - I'm a bit of an Aspie, and any kind of deviation from logic kind of tends to get under my skin.)

Why? I was just warming up!

your skin should know that following deviations through logic brings knowledge yet not known.

---

that being said raman indeed seems to be going in a lot of tangents in the last few weeks.

Humm thanks for letting me know. Was not very aware of that,

[StormShadow]

I wish I could feel more motivated to write longer and specific answers or posts.

---

It's not motivation, really; it's just staying on track. I get the impression that you're not rereading the question as you write the answer, and it's getting lost as you get more excited about what you're writing. That's what happens to me, anyway. That's why I often force myself to reread the original question two or three times as I write, and then once again before I hit "Post reply." I deviate sometimes as well. Longer answers will just make it worse, I think. Plus people in a forum are more likely to skip over something that's more than a couple of paragraphs.

[Infinite Unity]

I don't think it's going to work that way at all. Things will change yes, but much slower over the course of many years still. Unless of course the planet gets blown up or rendered uninhabitable.

The way I see it ... over the next 50 years there will be a large population reduction, the work of the negative elite coming to fruition.

The Law of One material is very clear that harvest occurs in a very short time frame.

You both may be right... and certainly these views make much more sense to the rational mind. I'm not arguing with your logic at all.

However, the issue that I am trying to tease out with this post has to do with how tenable the idea is of harvest occurring in 2012 as originally stated.

When you get down to the nitty-gritty it really doesn't make sense to, on the one hand, say you believe in the concept of harvest, but then on the other hand say that you think it is a gradual process that begins in 2012 and then carries on for decades or centuries afterward.  

The entire concept of harvest is inextricably connected with it being a discrete phenomenon that happens very rapidly.  When you strip the time constraints from the equation, the whole idea falls apart.

When somebody tries to say that harvest is really going to happen over a long period of time, it doesn't make sense because you don't need the concept of harvest to explain the events at all.  It's just a very natural progression of life.

---

There are some crop circles pointing at the female gestation period, which could be pointing at a time when pregnancy is not possible for 3D entities upon Gaia. Could be.

Will you expand on that?  First time I've heard of this... very interesting!

---

ra was saying that those who cant sync with 4d vibrations would have various 'opportunities' to leave the sphere. namely, heart attacks, various natural events, disasters and so on.

heart attacks are interesting, since they have been increasing everywhere, even in young and healthy.

Yes, clearly there are many ways to exit the world stage.  I am interested to know where you got the stat on heart attacks.

Basically where I am trying to go with this thread is that if this event is real and less than three years away, then we should be seeing some very clear evidence, i.e. increased death rates and/or decreased birth rates.  To my knowledge neither of these is the case.

The only other option is a cataclysm.  Certainly there are many folks out there who are making those predictions.  However, there are also those who are adamantly saying that there will be no cataclysm.

You are right, harvest does imply a time oriented situation, of rapidity. However, Time/space and space/time ratios of "time", though intricately interwoven, are spaced or mapped out differently. The harvest has already happened in time/space. The 4d world is already established, and you even have wanderers from that specific world here already. Time is not fixed. How you see/feel/experience the passage or voyage of time, does not interrelate to all "times" that exist. What happens here does effect the "future", but that future already exists, in a sense. The future has an influence on the "past", as all are an actual complete dynamic of The moment or Now.

All man has to do is reach out and grasp for the light, and in a moment, we would all come to see, that the evil of the world exist within us, within are mindsets, attitude, and behavior. In one moment man can set himself free. You and I are, our own chains: There is no one else.

My first lesson in The Law of One: As all things, you are responsible for all things. You are your brothers keeper.