Understanding Carla's challenge in the name of Christ

[Questioner]

Hello, I have read much Law of One material from LLResearch and David Wilcock in the past couple of years. I am still learning, but am now ready to join the discussion.

I want to find out if I understand something correctly about Carla Rueckert's channeling practice. If this is already covered, I'd welcome guidance about how to find the answers. Here is what I understand so far:

Carla has described that when she became willing to be a channel, she did not know ahead of time that she would become the channel for Ra. Many entities were eager to use her to communicate their message.

She had to come up with a way to decide which entities she would work with. Her decision was to ask herself what was the most powerful spiritual force she knew of, what was so valuable to her that it it worth living and dying for.

For her, as a mystical Christian, this meant the unconditional love of Christ as she understood it, as demonstrated by, but not exclusive to, the life of Jesus. She challenged each entity that wanted to use her as a channel, three times, if they were compatible with this highest spiritual force for good. If the entity did not affirm this unconditional love of the Christ consciousness, she refused to channel them.

The Ra contact passed her challenge, so she allowed herself to become Ra's channel of communication.

Is this much correct as far as it goes? Am I on track or not?

[edited to fix a typo]

[Monica]

Hi Questioner! Welcome to Bring4th!

That's correct according to my understanding.

I think you are exactly right that this challenge worked well for Carla because of her Christian foundation. Had she been, say, Hindu, her challenge might have been in the name of Krishna, for example. Had she been, say, Native American, perhaps she might have challenged Ra in the name of the Great Spirit...

[Questioner]

Thank you for writing back so quickly, Monica! I thought I would have to wonder about this all night and hope for an answer tomorrow. I'm happy for the confirmation.

Now I want to also understand what happened when the spiritual alignment was lost. Here is how I understand it, and again I'd welcome any guidance if I'm confused here.

For the Ra contact to be present, required the combination of Carla's service as "instrument;" Jim McCarty's service as loving emotional support and scribe; and Don Elkins' service conducting the conversation with Ra.

Sometimes Don's questions went astray from Ra's desire to communicate balanced, universal truths and principles. This was more common at the earlier sessions, when Don didn't yet realize what Ra wanted to talk about. If Don's questions or opinions for Ra were too far off, the contact was temporarily lost, and a less evolved, less balanced, less positive spiritual force took over using Carla as instrument. Either junk content came through, or Ra's message was hidden under distortions.

At these times, negative, selfish, unrealistic or useless information was provided. In addition, the physical rigors of the channeling experience increased for Carla, both during and between session.

The picture that comes to my mind is that someone reserves an auditorium and invites an audience for a speech. A respected speaker starts their talk, but is heckled by rude or ignorant questions. Eventually, the speaker gives up on the harsh crowd and walks off or just sits down to wait for the crowd to calm down.

Yet the stage, audience and microphone are all still there. Someone else might jump up on stage and give their own opinion. And that opinion is probably not as valuable as the original speaker, if the audience had been more cooperative.

Maybe this doesn't quite fit what Carla described, but it is a picture that helps me try to understand how this works.

Ra could not interrupt Don's free will by saying, "You shouldn't have asked about that, it's a waste of time," unless Don invited Ra to evaluate Don's questions. Yet Ra wanted to give an indication of whether or not Don was in alignment.

When the session concluded with Ra's return, if Ra had been absent because of poor communication on Don's part, Ra made a coded assessment. Ra indicated the value of the contact for that session by commenting on the alignment of the physical symbolic tools of the session.

Later, the people involved realized that Ra was not really fastidious about lining up these physical items, but was giving a code about whether or not Don's questions were on track.

If Don had asked, with each question, something like, "Please answer this question or if there is a better way to ask about the unconditional love of Christ consciousness and the one infinite creator, please help me find a better question," Ra would have honored that request. Communication would have been slower with these disclaimers, but it would have avoided the distortions.

But there is no blame for Don to have not thought of this at the time, because the whole alignment code had not yet been figured out and Ra could not give a hint without violating free will.

So, again I am trying to understand if this is a correct way to comprehend the Ra messages.

[βαθμιαίος]

Having listened to the tapes, I'm pretty sure it was Ra all the time. But you're right, of course, that Ra preferred some questions to others.

[Monica]

Having listened to the tapes, I'm pretty sure it was Ra all the time. But you're right, of course, that Ra preferred some questions to others.

Ra stated that it was a narrow-band contact. Their purpose was to disseminate the Law of One. Transient questions caused the contact to detune, sort of like when your radio is set on a particular channel but then starts to drift and other channels start getting picked up.

My understanding was that it was still Ra, but focus had been lost. Although, there was one session (not sure if there were more) in which the normal greeting of "I am Ra." was left out. I would definitely consider this significant. Whether this means that it wasn't Ra, I'm not sure about, but my guess would be that, perhaps in this single case, it wasn't Ra, but in all the other sessions, it was Ra, even though the info might have been transient. My impression was that Ra sort of indulged Don's transient questions, but left the subtle clues about the alignments, not to indicate that Ra wasn't present, but to get the dialog back on track.

[βαθμιαίος]

Certain answers in a few sessions lacked the "I am Ra" preface, but in all sessions almost all of the answers began with "I am Ra".

To some extent Ra's purpose was to disseminate the Law of One, but it was also to attempt to redress the imbalances they had set in motion in their earlier contacts with earth. They wanted the material to be widely disseminated, and they were happy to leave the direction of the questions completely up to Don:

Questioner: I am fully aware that you are primarily interested in disseminating information concerning the Law of One. However, it is my judgment, and I could be wrong, that in order to disseminate this material it will be necessary to include questions such as the one I have just asked. If this is not the objective, then I could limit my questions to the application of the Law of One. But I understand that at this time it is the objective to widely disseminate this material. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This perception is only slightly distorted in your understand/learning. We wish you to proceed as you deem proper. That is your place. We, in giving this information, find our distortion of understanding of our purpose to be that not only of the offering of information, but the weighting of it according to our distorted perceptions of its relative importance. Thus, you will find our statements, at times, to be those which imply that a question is unimportant. This is due to our perception that the given question is unimportant. Nevertheless, unless the question contains the potential for answer-giving which may infringe upon free will, we offer our answers.

Having listened to the tapes, I find the idea that Ra could have left Carla's body during the sessions and been replaced by another entity ridiculous. Carla was in a deep trance during the sessions, guarded by a circle through which no thought-form could pass. At a couple of points during the session when Ra felt the protection was less than completely adequate, Ra instructed Don and Jim to re-walk the circle and/or expel breath over the instrument's chest, which they did. Believe me when I tell you nothing was getting through that circle.

I also find the whole idea that the alignments were a coded message about the direction of the questions to be not quite completely accurate. In my opinion, the ritual accoutrements were an end in and of themselves, and more important in some ways than the questions themselves. You had a situation where energies of great power and intensity were pouring through a very fragile instrument while under attack from an ipsissimus...

Questioner: Can you tell me why the slight error made in the ritual starting this communication two sessions ago allowed the intrusion by an Orion affiliated entity?

Ra: I am Ra. This contact is narrow band and its preconditions precise. The other-self offering its service in the negative path also is possessed of the skill of the swordsman. You deal in this contact with, shall we say, forces of great intensity poured into a vessel as delicate as a snowflake and as crystalline.

The smallest of lapses may disturb the regularity of this pattern of energies which forms the channel for these transmissions.

We may note for your information that our pause was due to the necessity of being quite sure that the mind/body/spirit complex of the instrument was safely in the proper light configuration or density before we dealt with the situation. Far better would it be to allow the shell to become unviable than to allow the mind/body/spirit complex to be shall we say, misplaced.

[Questioner]

Thank you very much for the answers.

I find comfort in the idea that the contact was continuously with Ra, rather than some negative entity; distorted at times, but not lost or usurped.

I also had missed Don's question about whether his own questions were on track, and I see that Ra's response re-emphasized free will.

Now that I think about my learning process, I remember that a study guide about the Law of One discussed the physical alignment as a metaphor. That guide might have been linked from David Wilcock's site, or one I found elsewhere. Perhaps I should set aside that idea as someone else's interpretation of the Law of One, rather than being present in the material itself.

By the way, how is βαθμιαίος pronounced in English? I suspect that name might be Greek but in any event, it's a language I don't know.

The next thing I wanted to ask about was about the transition between Don's death and the conscious channeling of Qu'o. Is there a portion of the L/L Research site that describes this history? I would assume that Carla used her same spiritual challenge before accepting the message of Qu'o. What I wonder is whether there was a conscious attempt to initiate channeling to fill in the gap after Ra, or did the subsequent contacts just start happening?

[Monica]

The next thing I wanted to ask about was about the transition between Don's death and the conscious channeling of Qu'o. Is there a portion of the L/L Research site that describes this history? I would assume that Carla used her same spiritual challenge before accepting the message of Qu'o. What I wonder is whether there was a conscious attempt to initiate channeling to fill in the gap after Ra, or did the subsequent contacts just start happening?

Much of this is discussed in Book V, which has a lot of commentary by Carla.

---

Having listened to the tapes, I find the idea that Ra could have left Carla's body during the sessions and been replaced by another entity ridiculous. Carla was in a deep trance during the sessions, guarded by a circle through which no thought-form could pass. At a couple of points during the session when Ra felt the protection was less than completely adequate, Ra instructed Don and Jim to re-walk the circle and/or expel breath over the instrument's chest, which they did. Believe me when I tell you nothing was getting through that circle.

I don't think it's ridiculous to ask the question, because we know this does happen quite frequently in channeling sessions. However, I agree with you that there's no way it could have happened in Carla's case, because they were so conscientious. I agree that Carla and the contact were protected and it was Ra at all times, with the possible exceptions of those few instances in which Ra did not say "I am Ra." Even then, it might have still be Ra, but Ra was letting them know that they were getting detuned by the transient questions.

I also find the whole idea that the alignments were a coded message about the direction of the questions to be not quite completely accurate. In my opinion, the ritual accoutrements were an end in and of themselves, and more important in some ways than the questions themselves.

If I remember correctly, it was Carla who stated that Ra's insistence on proper alignments was actually an attempt to hint to them that they were getting detuned. I could be wrong on that, but that's what I remember. That's not to say that the alignments weren't powerful in and of themselves, but that they may have had an additional layer of meaning as well.

We may note for your information that our pause was due to the necessity of being quite sure that the mind/body/spirit complex of the instrument was safely in the proper light configuration or density before we dealt with the situation.

This shows how conscientious Ra was in doing what they could to protect Carla.

[Questioner]

It's been a while since I have read Book V, so I should go back to the source and get more familiar with what Carla herself said about all of this. I seem to remember that she also had some information along these lines in one of her Handbooks, either Wanderer's or Channeling. Is there someone who happens to be familiar with how to get right to the relevant passages?

I didn't take "I find the idea... ridiculous" as any kind of personal rejection or disrespect. It felt to me like discussion of the ideas, with kindness and respect for the people in the discussion. This was exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping to find here, so thank you!

In addition to the question about the transition to Qu'o, I would like to ask about something else and I could use some guidance about what's appropriate on this forum. I wanted to bring in something about David Wilcock's channeling at this time.

If it was anyone else other than Carla, it would be obvious that I should take my question to that person's forum. But I'm uncertain about how the "only Law of One" rule applies in discussions of the connection between Carla's work, and David's work.

I see that there is some shared history and great mutual respect between the L/L Research and Divine Cosmos teams, with David crediting Carla's massive initial work in channeling, and Carla crediting David's massive work in integrating science research. Because of this close connection, I'm not sure how much I may ask here.

My question is about how Carla's challenge relates to David's channeling of his spiritual guidance called Ra, but not necessarily the same Ra or same version/density/timeline of Ra as Carla channeled. As my question is based on Carla's work I'd really like to ask it here, but if I should take the question to David's forum then I'll do so.

[βαθμιαίος]

Now that I think about my learning process, I remember that a study guide about the Law of One discussed the physical alignment as a metaphor. That guide might have been linked from David Wilcock's site, or one I found elsewhere. Perhaps I should set aside that idea as someone else's interpretation of the Law of One, rather than being present in the material itself.

I think Monica is right that it's an interpretation shared by Carla (and Jim). However, as far as I know it's not something Ra themselves said.

By the way, how is βαθμιαίος pronounced in English? I suspect that name might be Greek but in any event, it's a language I don't know.

I pronounce it Bahth-mee-eye-os, but I have to admit I don't really know. It's pidgin Greek that I got from Babelfish when I plugged in one of my favorite Ra quotes. See my profile for a fuller explication.

What I wonder is whether there was a conscious attempt to initiate channeling to fill in the gap after Ra, or did the subsequent contacts just start happening?

L/L was channeling other entities all throughout the Ra contact years. If you go to their site and browse by year you can see the other sessions from the early '80s. After the Ra contact ended I think it may have taken a while for Carla (and Jim) to get over the grief of Don's death, but they had never stopped channeling other entities. However, the Q'uo contact did begin after the Ra contact ended and was/is in many ways a continuation of it, through conscious channeling rather than trance.

I didn't take "I find the idea... ridiculous" as any kind of personal rejection or disrespect. It felt to me like discussion of the ideas, with kindness and respect for the people in the discussion. This was exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping to find here, so thank you!

I'm glad; it certainly wasn't meant to be disrespectful. Perhaps "implausible" would have been a better choice of words than "ridiculous".

My question is about how Carla's challenge relates to David's channeling of his spiritual guidance called Ra, but not necessarily the same Ra or same version/density/timeline of Ra as Carla channeled. As my question is based on Carla's work I'd really like to ask it here, but if I should take the question to David's forum then I'll do so.

I think this is a legitimate question but not one I'm qualified to answer. I will note that there is a long thread here on David's work, with many opinions expressed.

[Monica]

My question is about how Carla's challenge relates to David's channeling of his spiritual guidance called Ra, but not necessarily the same Ra or same version/density/timeline of Ra as Carla channeled. As my question is based on Carla's work I'd really like to ask it here, but if I should take the question to David's forum then I'll do so.

I'm not sure what your question is! Please restate.

I don't know anything about DW's challenging process. Based on my understanding of David's own words, you are correct that his 'Ra' is not the same as the 'Ra' of Carla's Law of One sessions.

There is a thread devoted to a discussion of DW's work here. But if you want to discuss Carla's work, please feel free to ask your question (while keeping in mind that we can only offer our opinions based on our own personal interpretation/understanding and cannot actually speak for Carla).

[Questioner]

I see that I overlooked something fairly obvious, right here on this site.

On the page http://www.bring4th.org/about/ Carla writes:

"After three years of channeling the Ra group, I had become rather spoiled as a channel. I knew that I could not contact the Ra group, after Don's death, but I hungered for the highest and best contact I could carry of the Christ consciousness in a stable, conscious manner. I began to ask for the highest and best. And at that point, the Q'uo group appeared."

As for your user name, I get a laugh from the idea that "step by step" in pidgin Greek is something that has to be figured out... step by step.

I'll look for the thread here about David. My question might be one that hasn't been asked before, so here goes.

Carla intended to channel, didn't know who would show up to use her service, and so she had a challenge for entities.

If I understand David's history, he had no intention or desire to channel, but he had been increasingly hearing/feeling the voice/guidance he later identified as his own higher self, the same higher self of Cayce who David sees as his own earlier lifetime. As far as I know, David has never channeled any other entity than his version of Ra.

Now maybe I'm mistaken about any of that, if so I'd welcome more informed perspective. If I do understand this right, my question is: has David ever challenged his own version of Ra with Carla's same channel? Has he asked that his own Ra contact affirm the unconditional love of Christ consciousness, or whatever else David might think of as even more important?

If he hasn't discussed or written about this point, it might be a question only David could answer. And I don't mean any disrespect, I simply want to understand some of the differences in process between his work and Carla's.

[Monica]

I'll look for the thread here about David.

Just click on the word 'here' in my earlier post.

If I understand David's history, he had no intention or desire to channel, but he had been increasingly hearing/feeling the voice/guidance he later identified as his own higher self, the same higher self of Cayce who David sees as his own earlier lifetime. As far as I know, David has never channeled any other entity than his version of Ra.

Now maybe I'm mistaken about any of that, if so I'd welcome more informed perspective. If I do understand this right, my question is: has David ever challenged his own version of Ra with Carla's same channel? Has he asked that his own Ra contact affirm the unconditional love of Christ consciousness, or whatever else David might think of as even more important?

If he hasn't discussed or written about this point, it might be a question only David could answer. And I don't mean any disrespect, I simply want to understand some of the differences in process between his work and Carla's.

I have no idea. Could you please ask this question on the David Wilcock thread? You might have a better chance of getting a response, since the people who might know more about DW will be more likely to check that thread. Thanks!

[Questioner]

Wow, a 20 page thread! That will keep me busy for a while. One thing that's true of both Carla and David is that they both have a lot to say, and then lots of other people have lots of opinions about it all.

To return to Carla's channeling, as far as I know, her spiritual challenge for the entities is unique among channelers. It is one of her many practices or attitudes I greatly admire. I wonder if it is a key reason she has been able to make such a contribution, through the years, with her massive wealth of valuable information to explore.

[Monica]

To return to Carla's channeling, as far as I know, her spiritual challenge for the entities is unique among channelers. It is one of her many practices or attitudes I greatly admire. I wonder if it is a key reason she has been able to make such a contribution, through the years, with her massive wealth of valuable information to explore.

I think you may be right about that! I think it's a key reason why the Law of One is of such high caliber.

[carrie]

The suggested channel method should be:

start session

Question: [Question]
Answer: [SOT] I/We is/are [Banner]. [Response]. [EOT] [Pause] [SOT] I/We is/are [Banner]. [Response]. [SOT] I/We is/are [Banner]. [Response]. [EOT]

[Next Question in similar fashion]

until End-of-Session

End of session message: [SOT] I/We is/are [Banner]. [I/We bring forth upon the laws upon One Infinite Creator. We come forth upon service of the Infinity of our Creator]. [etc] [EOT]

Where:
- [SOT] is Start of transmitted message.
- [Banner] is name is the name of the entity.
- [EOT] is End of transmitted message.
- [Pause] represents a break or period of time which passes / or message.

Most of what is being received should resonate or be similar to LOO.

[Questioner]

Carrie, I understand that you described the protocol used by Ra. I can see two valuable parts of the protocol you reaffirmed from the Ra books. One part is that the entity identifies itself, so we can tell which responses came from the same entity. The other part is that the entity identifies its purpose for service.

What I wonder is whether that particular protocol has to be as rigidly formatted as you describe.

I imagine moderators might not want us to discuss other channeling sources too much on this site. So if my next paragraph, with the identity of another channeled source, has to be deleted for the forum rules, I hope the rest of this post could stay to help discussion of the Ra books.

I'll use another channeled source for comparison: Bashar. Searches on YouTube or Google will go directly to sites, articles and video clips of this channeling.

I think this other entity I mentioned meets your requirements, without using your protocol. When communicating in English, the entity is only channeled by one person, who only channels that one entity. The entity's communication style is so remarkably distinctive that it would be almost silly to have it announce the name with every sentence.

The content, tone of voice, accent inflections, attitude, body language, etc. make clear the same entity is present. This is even before the content matches up from one message to another. It is already clear and obvious which messages come from the entity, without the "I am.." repetition. So this seems to make clear who is speaking, even though the name isn't announced throughout every session.

The entity has affirmed service to the one infinite creator, service to others, and the validity of the Ra books. However, this affirmation occurs within the messages rather than formally at the open and close of each message.

These messages would fail your protocol test, because they aren't formatted the same was as the Ra books. But I believe they do meet the intent behind the protocol rules, even though they fulfill that intent in a different way.

The way I see it, is that Carla's challenge would be wise for any channeler to use. But it would not help much to demand that other entities use exactly the same communication protocol as Ra did. After all, once Carla accepted Ra as a source, it was Ra, not Carla, that came up with the "I am Ra" and "We leave you now..." formats. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but when I think it through, this seems the most logical way to apply her challenge.

[carrie]

> What I wonder is whether that particular protocol has to be as rigidly formatted as you describe.
> The entity has affirmed service to the one infinite creator, service to others, and the validity of the Ra books. However, this affirmation occurs within the messages rather than formally at the open and close of each message.

The reason for this protocol is:

- Suppose another entity interrupts you. How do you know the inserted message is true? Thus, the "banner" or identifier is important.

- Purity. Since there is pause, the "banner" needs to be transmit again. This is to ensure 1) does not happen.

- Trust. You cannot expect that since you receive messages from the other side, that the same entity you will receive next time.

- The other which is not mentioned, is secret-key challenge. Since you can transmit to them, the next time, the entity should be able to respond back the same.

- How do you know it is not some anecdotes or wise sayings for profit? (How many things do you have to buy before you "get" the message?)

- You should also read about caution about channeling without spiritual defense/ or without consideration with preparing your heart.

- The Ra materials are ready-made, almost 80%-90% pure. It is even more "purer" than my own sources. Most transmissions are very accurate.

- Let's say for example you receive messages but of dark nature. or you get attacked spiritually. Will you have enough defenses to fend-off those attacks?

It would be like someone trying to climb a mountain to reach the top, but they forget about the coldness, the preparation and warm clothes.

The banner "Confederation of the Planets in the Service of our Infinite Creator" is not an identifier you can easily duplicate.

ah = Father
don = who
ai = loves
va = remember
su = part
bo rr = those from
gus = (definition not clear - closest word is brothers and sisters)

Adonai vasu borrgus

The closest English equivalent is:

Those of your brothers and sisters part with greetings, remember Adonai
(who loves you very much).

[Monica]

carrie, thank you for sharing the protocol that you have found helpful! I'm glad it works well for you.

Other protocols might work just as well for others. And, I can't help but think that, regardless of the protocol used, the most important aspect to maintaining a safe and secure contact might be the intention to attract only the highest good. Regardless of the words Carla might have used, I think it was her intention that attracted the Confederation entities. After the contact was well underway, the love, harmony, and unified purpose of channeling team were crucial to maintaining the caliber of the contact.

Likewise, there may be other channeled sources out there who use a different protocol, but whose integrity is high as well. I do agree that Ra must have used that protocol for a reason and it is a good protocol. I'm just saying that there might be other protocols that work just as well, for others.

A full discussion of all the various protocols used by other channeled sources is beyond the scope of this discussion (or this forum for that matter), but I think we can all agree that Carla's (and Don's and Jim's) attempt to keep the contact pure was exemplary! And now we are able to enjoy the fruits of their efforts: The Law of One! (and subsequent channeled works as well.)

I feel very appreciative for the way in which Carla handled the contact. I remember when I first read the books around 1985, her insistence upon the highest good gave me great comfort and reassurance, as I embarked upon what turned out to be an incredible adventure!

But, ultimately, it was my resonance with the concepts and knowledge espoused by Ra, rather than any particular words used, that made me completely comfortable in exploring further.

Whereas I have often felt uncomfortable when reading other channeled works, even though portions of them might have resonated, for the Law of One resonated more completely and deeply than anything I had ever encountered, before or since.

[Questioner]

Carrie, I've never been personally involved in receiving any channeled messages. I was looking more for ways to select, appreciate and evaluate messages that other people have channeled.

Personally, my feeling is that Carla's work is, far and away, the most resonant and helpful for me. However, I wanted to not just rely on my feeling, but use my mind in this sorting process as well. I thought about what is different about her work, and that challenge at the beginning of the process certainly stands out as distinctive. So that is where I started my participation on this forum.

One way I wanted to do this was to look at the intention the channeler uses, before channeling starts. I apologize for any confusion from my not explaining where I was coming from.

As far as I know, Carla's challenge happened before she entered the trance state. Once she accepted Ra, the Ra message, including the format you mentioned, came about without involvement of Carla's conscious mind. That format helps to clarify things in all the ways you mentioned, but it was not part of Carla's conscious choice so I wonder how it could be applied to other channelers?

As far as I know, Carla's challenge about the highest and best standard she knew - the love of Christ - remains unique among channelers, although any channeler could choose any time to use such a standard before their own next contact.

I think I've seen all of the reasons you mentioned in the Ra material, or Carla's conscious communications, except for one: the secret key concept. I know what this means in terms of computer security, but I don't recall having seen the term used with channeling before. Can you give an example from the Ra books?

A full discussion of all the various protocols used by other channeled sources is beyond the scope of this discussion (or this forum for that matter), but I think we can all agree that Carla's (and Don's and Jim's) attempt to keep the contact pure was exemplary! And now we are able to enjoy the fruits of their efforts: The Law of One! (and subsequent channeled works as well.)

Monica, your comments about intention are helpful to me. One of my favorite examples of intention in communication comes from a famous advertising writer,Gary Halbert. Here is a passage from one of his newsletters (http://thegaryhalbertletter.com/Newslett...g_idea.htm):

One day you're in an important business meeting. Unbeknownst to you, your wife has gone into labor. Your mother is desperately trying to use her cell phone and page you... but... the god of cell phones and beepers (being the fickle prick he is) won't let your mother's call get through to your beeper. To make matters worse, she can't even find a coin pay phone anywhere in the hospital. In the meantime, your wife has had triplets!

The god of cell phones and beepers (again, being the fickle prick he is) does let your mother use the cell phone to get through to me (your close friend) and she tells me about the births. Naturally, I burst into your meeting room and tell you the news, "Buckwheat, your wife just had triplets!" Or I might say, "Hey, I just got a call from your mother and she says your wife has given birth to three girls!" Or I could say, "Look you guys, I'm sorry to interrupt your meeting... but... I just got a call from Buckwheat's mother and his wife has just delivered triplets!"

Is There Any Way In The World I Could
Use Words To Tell You Your Wife Has
Just Given Birth To Three Babies... That...
Would NOT Be Captivating To You?

Here's the point: It's not how you say it... it's WHAT you say!

That's a humorous way to put it, but it makes the point. For Carla's challenge and Ra's response, I also feel that the words were chosen with precision, but what is even more important is the resonance of the intention.

Monica, as long as you see this discussion as helpful for those learning from Carla's work, I'd like it to continue. If you feel there's not much more to say about this without drifting away from Carla's work, I'll respect your judgement about when the thread has run its course.

[Bring4th_Steve]

[Bashar's] communication style is so remarkably distinctive that it would be almost silly to have it announce the name with every sentence.

Questioner, we are now talking apples and oranges. Bashar is trance channeled, while Q'uo is not. Therefore it makes a lot of sense for Q'uo to need to qualify itself during each transmission to ensure the integrity of the message. I also believe Q'uo follows this protocol as an extension to Ra's original protocol, since Ra is still providing all information to Latwii and Hatton (Ra, Hatton and Latwii make up Q'uo), which is then stepped down to Carla's vibration.

Frankly, I wish all channels followed a protocol of identifying themselves during each answer or message, even if they "sounded" distinctive enough from session to session (like Bashar). There are so many ways entities can don sheeps wool and "act" like the Bashars or Joshiahs out there, offering messages of love with hidden little fear-based messages along the way that would help create an eventual avalanche of detuning. Carla has lamented on more than one occasion how this has happened to so many channels over the years.

The content, tone of voice, accent inflections, attitude, body language, etc. make clear the same entity is present. This is even before the content matches up from one message to another. It is already clear and obvious which messages come from the entity, without the "I am.." repetition. So this seems to make clear who is speaking, even though the name isn't announced throughout every session.

Questioner, I would think twice on this. As I mentioned, other entities can easy "interject" themselves and mimic a source. That is how so many other channelers got fooled into passing along increasingly negative information until it became blatantly obvious that something bad happened. Even to this day, if you confront a channelers' message as negative, you'll often get a sharp response back from that person that "you" are the one being negative! It's almost like denial because as far as the channeler is concerned, the entity is still the same as it/they were on Day 1 of establishing contact. That is why the challenge process is so critical, yet so few do it.

The way I see it, is that Carla's challenge would be wise for any channeler to use. But it would not help much to demand that other entities use exactly the same communication protocol as Ra did.

In my opinion, I feel the opposite. If I am channeling any source whatsoever, I "need" to know that the message is from the source that I believe it to be. Especially if I am going to be sharing my messages with the rest of the world! Requesting this "protocol" from the source is completely necessary, in my view. In fact I can't imagine why, if the entity is truly interested in communicating, that they wouldn't follow this practice of establishing integrity. Would you want your own messages to someone getting intercepted and transmuted into another meaning that becomes more and more fear-based over time? To me, I would appreciate and value channelers who think enough to employ such a thorough level of checks and balances. As we've heard many times, it's a crowded universe out there!

Steve

[carrie]

To me, I would appreciate and value channelers who think enough to employ such a thorough level of checks and balances.

If the "source" is truly interested in the well-being of the channeler, then it would mention such arrangement.

The other lamentation is the distortion of the original message once received. Once the message is received, there is great possibility the message would be so distorted the conveyed words have different meaning from (the source).

The L/L team have done wonderful work to encode these messages without distortion.

[Monica]

Requesting this "protocol" from the source is completely necessary, in my view. In fact I can't imagine why, if the entity is truly interested in communicating, that they wouldn't follow this practice of establishing integrity.

I agree with you on this and would like to clarify my earlier post. I agree that a protocol in which the identity and intention of the source is established. What I think is variable is the format that protocol might take; ie. the sequence that the info is given etc. When I said others might use a different protocol, what I really meant was a different format to accomplish the same thing.

I realize I'm sort of splitting hairs here, but I'm trying to draw a distinction between a set sequence of questions/statements vs. obtaining the same info in a slightly different sequence or fashion.

Steve, you know more about channeling than I do. Do you think some entities could still get past the set of challenge questions? ie. just simply lie?

[Questioner]

Steve, you do have some really good food for thought - and for second thought. Thank you for that. It's definitely true that just as with people, channeled entities could also be faked by someone else with a desire to slip in an incompatible message.

Here is what I wonder. Say I was to go to a session with channeling of a usually positive entity, with the opportunity for audience questions. Do I understand that it could it be a good idea to ask something like this:

In the Law of One material, Carla the channeler and Ra the message-bringer had some distinctive protocols to protect the integrity of the message. The channeller asked if the messenger would affirm the unconditional love of Christ consciousness, the highest spiritual good the channeller could imagine. The messenger started and ended each session with a greeting that referred to the qualities of the One Infinite Creator, such as light, love, and peace. The messenger began each response with a statement of the messenger's name. Would the current messenger be willing to use these same protocols to demonstrate clarity, accuracy, and a positive intention in this channeling?

Would this kind of question address the concerns Steve, Monica, and Carrie are bringing up?

[pphuck]

ah = Father
don = who
ai = loves
va = remember
su = part
bo rr = those from
gus = (definition not clear - closest word is brothers and sisters)

Adonai vasu borrgus

The closest English equivalent is:

Those of your brothers and sisters part with greetings, remember Adonai
(who loves you very much).

Where did you get this translation from, and what language is it a translation from?

[Questioner]

Where did you get this translation from, and what language is it a translation from?

I wondered that too.

Carrie, I see in your other posts that you've felt an intuitive resonance with some of the material from Carla's channeling. It also seems that you have felt a visionary sense of spiritual revelation, apart from the Law of One texts.

I am not a moderator, merely a fellow user. However I believe something could come up here that may cause confusion in the future, based on my experience with many other online message forums for almost twenty years now.

I am open to learning about your own spiritual revelations. That said, my primary purpose is to support this forum's focus on material from Carla and her associates. It would help if you could connect or contrast your own experience with what comes from L/L Research.

For this forum, may I ask that you please do something that will help me and others better appreciate Carla's channeling? Could you please make a distinction between your comments or quotes from L/L Research material on the one hand, and on the other hand indicate which of your comments come from your own intuition or other experience or sources?

I think, for example, that the definition you gave here might not actually come from within the Ra material. It might come from some other source such as your own visionary experiences.

For those of us that haven't had such experiences ourselves, confusion can increase when there's not a clear line between discussion of what Ra revealed, and what came from some other source of inspiration. And if this definition is in the Ra/LL archive, please point out the reference so we can discuss it together in context.

Thank you for your patience. As you can see from my posts, identifying the source and purpose of messages is an important theme to my own spiritual journey. And unless I credit an outside source, I am merely saying my own opinions. However this is not just for me, I believe my request will help others here as well if the "strictly Law of One forum" lives up to its title.

All of this is meant with respect and love, and if I am off track, I am open to a higher perspective about how to best use the catalyst of this forum.

[Lavazza]

I'm coming in late to this thread, please pardon my commenting on older posts:

Having listened to the tapes, I'm pretty sure it was Ra all the time. But you're right, of course, that Ra preferred some questions to others.

Do you mean that your take is that Ra was answering all of the questions by himself(themselves) without any distortion upon their contact? How are we then to explain the responses given by (supposedly) Ra about moon bases, under water bases, government projects involving craft that can travel certain fractions of the speed of light, etc?

Having listened to the tapes, I find the idea that Ra could have left Carla's body during the sessions and been replaced by another entity ridiculous. Carla was in a deep trance during the sessions, guarded by a circle through which no thought-form could pass. At a couple of points during the session when Ra felt the protection was less than completely adequate, Ra instructed Don and Jim to re-walk the circle and/or expel breath over the instrument's chest, which they did. Believe me when I tell you nothing was getting through that circle.

Well, I have two thoughts on this point. The first is that we are indeed talking about a sixth density entity which is investing itself in to the physical body of a third density entity. Ra is three dimensions away from our own. I would liken this to early versions of long distance telephone calls, where you have to patch through different hubs on different continents in order to reach your destination. In short- regardless of Ra's and L/L's care in making the contact it seems to me reasonable that there is still a lot of opportunity for distortion to occur. (just my speculation of course)

The second thing is that unlike negative greetings and/or other uninvited problems, the transient questions were a product of Don's free will. Basically, in asking those questions he himself was "opening the door" to distortion, which makes it far more likely that a rouge entity could crash the party. Because these are questions that a member of the circle is asking, Ra naturally had to respect the question and not condemn it, but perhaps step back from the podium as Questioner's analogy illustrated.

Not being apart of the group in the early 80's however, and not having listened to the tapes, these are my speculations. I could be wrong, but I am not comforted in the slightest by the notion that Ra could have been answering all of the questions himself, because unless reality is much, much different that I think it is, I cannot see how some of his responses can be truthful at all. Should we suspect all responses then? Could it be that the whole communication may indeed be false? Where is the line drawn? You see where I'm going with this.

[βαθμιαίος]

Do you mean that your take is that Ra was answering all of the questions by himself(themselves) without any distortion upon their contact? How are we then to explain the responses given by (supposedly) Ra about moon bases, under water bases, government projects involving craft that can travel certain fractions of the speed of light, etc?

[snip]

Not being apart of the group in the early 80's however, and not having listened to the tapes, these are my speculations. I could be wrong, but I am not comforted in the slightest by the notion that Ra could have been answering all of the questions himself, because unless reality is much, much different that I think it is, I cannot see how some of his responses can be truthful at all. Should we suspect all responses then? Could it be that the whole communication may indeed be false? Where is the line drawn? You see where I'm going with this.

I've always assumed that the information was accurate, though transient.

[Monica]

I've always assumed that the information was accurate, though transient.

With the possible exception of some of the numbers, which Ra stated could be 'off' -
Me too.

[Lavazza]

I've always assumed that the information was accurate, though transient.

With the possible exception of some of the numbers, which Ra stated could be 'off' -
Me too.

Moon bases included?