Understanding Carla's challenge in the name of Christ

[βαθμιαίος]

Yes, and undersea bases, too.

[Monica]

There is a scientific axiom that you "can't prove a negative."

So, since there is no way to prove conclusively that there aren't moon bases or undersea bases, I see no reason to doubt Ra's words on these.

[Lavazza]

There is a scientific axiom that you "can't prove a negative."

And thus it becomes a choice to believe, and I will offer respect towards anyone's belief as I would only expect the same in return.

aimez et la lumière,
Lavazza

[Monica]

And thus it becomes a choice to believe, and I will offer respect towards anyone's belief as I would only expect the same in return.

Agreed!

aimez et la lumière,

Translate please?

[carrie]

aimez et la lumière,

French, love & light

[Monica]

French, love & light

Oh, ok thanks! :idea:

[Sacred Fool]

Moon bases? Missiles traveling at half the speed of light?

Was Ra confused or the contact tainted?

LOL! I thought Ra comes from the place where all paradoxes are resolved???


My personal response is that any stimulus that moves you closer to your own heart is beneficial, regardless of the source. Likewise anything that throws you off that track could be profitably set aside. Whether it's true or not is another (and far more transient) question all together.

[Steppingfeet]

I want to find out if I understand something correctly about Carla Rueckert's channeling practice.

Hello Questioner.

In addition to Book V, two other great resources for learning all that there is to know about the history, technique, and philosophy of Carla’s channeling include:

1. Carla’s "A Channeling Handbook".

2. Transcripts from the first Channeling Intensive.

There is truly a great deal that goes into Carla’s preparatory process before channeling. Incidentally L/L Research just concluded a workshop yesterday devoted to teaching the techniques that Carla created in cooperation with Don Elkins, techniques which Carla has never stopped refining.

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.

You are right, no one in the group could have anticipated Ra.

During the course of what we would consider a long period of time, the social memory complex Ra sought out the original L/L group, not vice versa.

Though at the same time Ra was “called” to the group in response to the group’s seeking and the group’s need.

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.

That’s loosely correct. Don Elkins had adopted the channeling protocol from a group of seekers in Detroit, Michigan who were channeling Confederation sources. In January of 1962, Don and his early group of channeling volunteers in Louisville, Kentucky began applying that protocol in order to contact the Confederation.

From then on the protocol was continually refined, often through simple trial and error, I believe. In the process, sometime during or shortly before 1975, Carla discovered and utilized the aspect of “challenging” those sources who wished to speak through her instrument in the preparatory process preceding each channeling. In her case, that challenge is as you described it – a challenge in the name of that principle for which she would die, that of Jesus the Christ.

The inspiration for challenging came from Carla’s beloved holy book.

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

The Ra group did indeed pass her challenge, but much more than simply the challenge was needed to establish and sustain the contact, including the implementation of magical ritual.

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.

I would agree with the first portion of your understanding about Don’s questions going “astray” and moving into the realm of the transient. I would categorically disagree with your understanding that “junk” (negative, selfish, unrealistic, etc.) material was offered in response to transient questions.

While there is indeed material within the Law of One books that I gloss over when reading, there is not a syllable within the material which I would define using such pejorative terms…or terms descriptive of the negative polarity, egocentrism, or delusion.

I am with βαθμιαίος in feeling certain that Ra was always the one communicating each message. Ra did warn about the possibility of their contact (indeed, any contact with a positive source) becoming detuned through an emphasis upon transient questions, and encouraged the group to “Please guard your alignments carefully”, but never have I seen a shred of evidence to indicate that Ra had been displaced by a negatively oriented entity aping Ra.

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.

I believe you are essentially correct. Here are two Book V snippets:

Jim McCarty: It was our decision to remove this information from Book One of THE Law of One because we felt it to be entirely unimportant and of a transient nature since knowing it adds nothing to one’s ability or desire to seek the truth and the nature of the evolutionary process, whether the information is true or not. In fact, knowing and continuing to seek this kind of information can become a major stumbling block to one’s spiritual journey because it removes one’s attention from the eternal truths which may serve anyone’s journey—at any time—and places it upon that which is only of fleeting interest and of little use spiritually. Concentrating on conspiracy theories and their participants tends to reinforce the illusion of separation and ignores the love that binds all things as One Being. If we had continued to pursue this particular line of questioning, or any other line of questioning of a transient nature, we would soon have lost the contact with those of Ra because, as Ra mentioned in the very first session, Ra communicated with us through a “narrow band” of vibration or wave length.

Through various clues that Ra gave us when Don asked about the alignments at the end of each session, we were able to determine that this “narrow band” meant that only information of the purest and most precise nature concerning the process of the evolution of mind, body, and spirit could be successfully transmitted on a sustainable basis through our instrument. To ask Ra questions of a transient nature would be like trying to run a finely-tuned engine on crude petroleum.

Carla Rueckert: The desire that had brought Ra to our group was a true desire for non-transient material, and this desire fueled our sessions. When we departed from that level of information, Ra would remind us to get back on track in a subtle way: by telling us to watch our alignments. We at first took them literally and thought they were referring to the items on the altar, to getting them lined up rightly. Later, we figured out that they were grading our questions, not our Bible and candle placement. It’s worth emphasizing that anything measurable is also transient. The human spirit, the force of creative love, the creation’s essence: these things are unfindable, noumenal, always sensed and never penetrated by our fact-finding intellects.

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?

I may be wrong but I think that Q’uo first appeared on the scene in ’86. There is more about the post-Ra Contact year in the “About” section on this website. Here are a few pertinent paragraphs:

However, I ended the Ra contact. I was following the Ra group's suggestion that I not attempt to channel the Ra group if either Jim or Don was unavailable. This particular contact was different from all my other channeling in that it was done in trance. I have never been trained as a trance channel and the trance state was an involuntary occurrence. In my case, trance work was extremely hard on my physical body. I lost two to three pounds after every Ra session and weighed no more than 85 pounds for the three years the contact was ongoing. So I heeded the Ra group's advice and did not attempt to contact Ra directly again.

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.

The Ra Contact is somewhat anomalistic in L/L Research’s channeling history for many reasons, including but not limited to: a) the instrument was completely unconscious, b) it attracted elite level negative efforts to shut it down, c) magical ritual was a necessary and critical safeguard for the contact and the group, and d), its short life span. The Ra Contact lasted from 1981 – 1984, whereas Carla has been channeling Confederation sources in a conscious fashion from 1974 – present day: before, *during*, and after the Ra contact. It is a long and extraordinary history of uninterrupted channeling.

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)

Hi Lavazza. Good thoughts. In response I will begin with a premise that I’m sure you and everyone in these forums will accept: Distortion is impossible to avoid. To the extent that we have an identity which seems to be not one with all, to the extent that we are manifest at all, we are experiencing and creating distortions of the one infinite Creator.

That said, I will agree with your statement that, during the Ra Contact, there was indeed “a lot of opportunity for distortion to occur”. In the course of any day, any session, and any question during the Ra Contact, any one or all three of the group could have made choices to reduce the purity of the contact, thereby opening the door for less-than-pure or even negatively oriented material. Yes, there was opportunity.

I would disagree with the implication (if there is an implication) that distortion in a pejorative sense was inevitable despite the extremes to which both the L/L group and Ra went to ensure a positive, safe, stable, and pure contact. I believe that the group’s efforts and fastidiousness were not for naught. That material which (in my little universe) shines with an integrity and brilliance unlike any other is the direct result of effort, of not taking those many opportunities which would have detuned the contact. The group was not perfect in their efforts - slip-ups and wayward questioning occurred - but fortunately they never fell outside the very narrow margin of error intrinsic to Ra’s narrow band transmission. Until of course that fateful action which effectively terminated the Ra Contact.

In other words, ten years after its discovery the Law of One material continues blowing my third density mind precisely because of the purity of its content and undistorted quality of its message.

Thanks everyone for a great thread!

[Monica]

Moon bases? Missiles traveling at half the speed of light?

Was Ra confused or the contact tainted?

LOL! I thought Ra comes from the place where all paradoxes are resolved???

I'm a little puzzled here as to why the above would be considered far-fetched. Doesn't seem any more far-fetched than a SMC, asking rocks to dance themselves into perfect pyramids, and myriad other seemingly 'weird' stuff in the Law of One.

To avoid getting this thread off-topic, though, I'll just ask if anyone can direct me to the thread that was devoted to discussing those controversial topics.

---

I would disagree with the implication (if there is an implication) that distortion in a pejorative sense was inevitable despite the extremes to which both the L/L group and Ra went to ensure a positive, safe, stable, and pure contact.

I agree with your disagreement!

I believe that the group’s efforts and fastidiousness were not for naught. That material which (in my little universe) shines with an integrity and brilliance unlike any other is the direct result of effort, of not taking those many opportunities which would have detuned the contact. The group was not perfect in their efforts - slip-ups and wayward questioning occurred - but fortunately they never fell outside the very narrow margin of error intrinsic to Ra’s narrow band transmission. Until of course that fateful action which effectively terminated the Ra Contact.

In other words, ten years after its discovery the Law of One material continues blowing my third density mind precisely because of the purity of its content and undistorted quality of its message.

I agree! And make that 24 years for me!

[βαθμιαίος]

Bring4th_GLB, could you edit your post, or Bring4th_Monica, could you do it for him? I believe there's a missing [/quote] after the third quote from Questioner that makes it look as if Bring4th_GLB's words are actually Questioner's.

-------------------------------------

Edit: Thanks, Bring4th_GLB!

[Steppingfeet]

Moon bases? Missiles traveling at half the speed of light?

Was Ra confused or the contact tainted?

LOL! I thought Ra comes from the place where all paradoxes are resolved???

I'm a little puzzled here as to why the above would be considered far-fetched. Doesn't seem any more far-fetched than a Social Memory Complex, asking rocks to dance themselves into perfect pyramids, and myriad other seemingly 'weird' stuff in the Law of One.

Here here and LOL! = )

That actually is hilarious that one who accepts that a civilization consisting of millions of entities upon Venus became unified into a single mind through billions of years of evolution and communicated universal truths through a human channel would also find the plausibility of our world's richest and most powerful government possessing advanced technology in doubt.

When rejecting an idea as completely preposterous in the past, I've noted to myself that, "Dude, you believe that benevolent aliens have and are telepathically communicating spiritual truth to those of on the surface of this planet".

Where we each draws the line between the credible and the dubious is a matter of great humor.

Love & Light,
GLB

[Sacred Fool]

Moon bases? Missiles traveling at half the speed of light?

Was Ra confused or the contact tainted?

LOL! I thought Ra comes from the place where all paradoxes are resolved???

I'm a little puzzled here as to why the above would be considered far-fetched. Doesn't seem any more far-fetched than a Social Memory Complex, asking rocks to dance themselves into perfect pyramids, and myriad other seemingly 'weird' stuff in the Law of One.

I didn't say that anything was far-fetched (although if it's being fetched from 6D, that's hard to argue against). I was trying to point out the paradox of more paradoxes being created by those who are paradoxically beyond paradox. No one's perfect, eh? But maybe I was being too light hearted?

Funny it is that no one is arguing that 6D aliens are fictitious nonsense. ???

Makes sense to me.

[Lavazza]

I'm a little puzzled here as to why the above would be considered far-fetched. Doesn't seem any more far-fetched than a Social Memory Complex, asking rocks to dance themselves into perfect pyramids, and myriad other seemingly 'weird' stuff in the Law of One.

That actually is hilarious that one who accepts that a civilization consisting of millions of entities upon Venus became unified into a single mind through billions of years of evolution and communicated universal truths through a human channel would also find the plausibility of our world's richest and most powerful government possessing advanced technology in doubt.

Where we each draws the line between the credible and the dubious is a matter of great humor. Wink

LOL! It's true, I will readily admit that there is a degree of paradox when it comes to this sort of thing. But I do see a difference between say, the existence of social memory complexes and say, the existence of moon bases.

(please wait a second while I get my heretic hat on...)

I suppose the way the line gets drawn for me is my belief that Ra is fallible. When we decide that Ra is indeed infallible, then we can proceed to rationalize such things as moon bases, underwater bases, big foot(feet?), light speed space craft, etc. and etc. Now then, Monica made an excellent point in that a negative cannot be proven, this is true. May be that they are all true. But it requires a stretch of the imagination to make these things work, a great stretch and the invalidation of many, many things that we know to be true about our world today. Social memory complexes do not require this sort of stretch and they do not require the invalidation of science and history- they are beyond our dimension entirely so there is no conflict.

It may also be worth mentioning that we also cannot prove or disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, coffee cups orbiting Neptune, or a great many other things that may be mentioned in other channeled texts (certainly there is a lot of crazy sounding stuff out there, no?).

Your mentioning (Monica) of the pyramids is another good example, because I extend the same sort of examination towards that topic. It was actually instrumental in my decision to consciously decide that TLOO should not be my only source in making up my spiritual belief system. I now examine a wider range of works and find value in seeing where they overlap, and where they do not. In that way I have been able to get a better understanding of "the bigger picture", so to speak.

Anyhow, I am indeed happy to let the topic rest and echo again my respect for what anyone else chooses to believe in, but since the idea was suggested that it is strange to question certain parts while accepting other parts was raised, I felt compelled to chime in again.

And at the end of the day, what's really important is that the Law of One does contain so many gems of wisdom that ring true to the heart, I'm sure we can all agree... and AMEN!

[carrie]

Replying to Questioner's reply:

> 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.

I will try to ask [source] for more information when time permits. It will take some preparations and time given my busy schedule.

Most of the things are from memory and past. It has been many, many years since then, and it was unfortunate most answers I received and questions asked were not meticulously noted down as in LOO.

Hence, the unified "tip" or points format I used when I was writing in my blog and in this forum.

- The protocol given, was suggested format, given by [source] to ensure purity of the material transmitted.

- The translation is given for "Adonai vasu borrgus" is hattonn's ending message. The equivalent in English is "Those of your brothers and sisters part with greetings, remember Adonai (who loves you very much)". This was because I asked what the meaning of [this] was when they ended their messages.

- Many of the answers I have received have no relevant equivalent on this place. Many of them were exercises and requests for preparations, or review learning.

The net result of all of this, I am deeply humbled, and try every day to live the LOO. It is easier said than done.

If I do interfere with this question being asked, I am sorry.

---

asking rocks to dance themselves into perfect pyramids

Did you try galaxy formation?

These are possible with LOO.

[Sacred Fool]

(please wait a second while I get my heretic hat on...)

In a skirmish between the Orthodox and the Heretics I'm thinking the Heretics are probably going to have more fun. Lavazza, where can I get one of those hats??


My nose tells me as well that the purity of the L/L channeling is outstanding. But who instituted the Doctrine of Infallibility? My memory is that both Messrs. Ra and Elkins corrected mistakes made in previous sessions. So, maybe they missed some? I don't know.

I'm wondering if some folks find their faith threatened (a little) and their polarity lessened (a tiny bit) by suggestions of fallibility. If so, I'm sorry if I'm aggravating that. On the other hand, it might be good catalyst?


Oh, back to challenging: I've taken to trying to remember to do more tuning and challenging over the course of a normal diurnal period. It helps keep me focused and my vibrational level more lustrous (perhaps). {[I should maybe do it more often before writing some of these posts?]}

[βαθμιαίος]

I don't think anyone is claiming that Ra isn't fallible; they never claimed to be infallible -- far from it.

Personally, I find claims like US govt UFOs, undersea bases, etc. plausible, especially after looking into Tesla's life and achievements. For me, the statements Ra makes about such subjects do not require "invalidation of many, many things that we know to be true about our world today."

[Bring4th_Steve]

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?

Monica, from what I learned in my short-but-invaluable channeling weekend with Carla, no entity will "lie" when you challenge them in the highest form of love that you can comprehend in your heart. For some that is Jesus Christ, for others it is Buddha, mother nature, or even a relative that passed on whom you've loved more than anything in this world.

On the other hand...
It is entirely possible that if a channeler doesn't hold in her heart an idea of what her highest form of love is, that it would be dangerous to challenge an entity in the name of that love. In other words, if she is wishy-washy on her idea of what the infinite Creator is and she is challenging in the name of the infinite Creator, then what good is it to challenge an entity who can see her vibrations and knows that she is just challenging half-heartedly? That surely would be a "welcome mat" for an entity to become attracted to her confused energy and begin talking in a way that is not of its highest self, either (distortions).

Steve

[Bring4th_Steve]

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?

That's a great question, but if it were me, I would not approach it this way. I would first ask the channeler to challenge the entity in the highest form of love that the channeler knows of. That way, you *know* the information is going to be love-based and most probably with minimal distortions.

Now, if the channeler is trance channeling, that's a different story. At the point of questioning, you could ask the entity if it serves the one infinite Creator. If it doesn't, I hear that it will end the session immediately by leaving. If it does, it will say something loving back, that it is an entity living in christ-conciousness or part of a soul group who serve the infinite Creator. If the entity will not express at what level it is basing its information, then you have a serious reason to doubt the current content and the history of the content from that entity, as well.

I will mention this... PLEASE do not channel on your own! It is a very dangerous proposition. It's like playing roulette. You may get lucky and attract a loving entity, but you also may attract a sly entity who at first says loving things but slowly begins slipping in negative or fear-based statements without you noticing. Before you know it, you'd be totally detuned.

Carla asks, and I agree 100% on this, that we should only consciously channel our higher Selves. If we do decide to channel outside of ourselves, then to make sure there are 3 people together who are loving entities and a desire to seek messages in the highest form of love possible. It is also important that the channeler have experience in such a small circle, so that the messages can be received and interpreted from the entity with as minimal of human distortions as possible.

Steve

[Questioner]

GLB, thank you for the detailed reply.

I came across "A channeling handbook," but I didn't do more than skim it. I do not want to try to be a channel, in the L/L Research sense of the term, at this time. For the same reason I entirely skipped the channeling intensive transcript.

It makes sense that Carla's channeling guidebooks would contain her guidance about her channeling process. So thanks for pointing those out. I can go read them more attentively to help me understand her process.

Incidentally L/L Research just concluded a workshop yesterday

So the teaching and learning continues. I imagine that means that I should be aware that material in the older handbooks and courses might have been superseded by later developments.

The inspiration for challenging came from Carla’s beloved holy book.

I did pick up on that.

never have I seen a shred of evidence to indicate that Ra had been displaced by a negatively oriented entity aping Ra.

I apologize for my use of the word "junk." I felt too rushed to think about a better word. With more consideration, maybe it would be better to say something like, "less focused or helpful material as received, due to increased distortion in the communication process."

Jim McCarty's book V quote on alignments was the one tickling the back of my mind.

It’s worth emphasizing that anything measurable is also transient.

I had unfortunately glossed over that in my earlier reading. That passage has some deep wisdom that is very resonant for me right now, as I ponder some important but transient issues and decisions in my life. It is a timely and beautiful reminder for me to "seek first the Kingdom of God." Thank you for including that passage.

I share your admiration for the work and the workers, the people and entities involved in the L/L Research investigations. I recognize that imperfections and misunderstandings are more likely to occur in my own limitations at this time.

---

Carrie, thank you for answering my questions.

Most of the things are from memory and past. It has been many, many years since then, and it was unfortunate most answers I received and questions asked were not meticulously noted down as in LOO.

I wonder if you might have an opportunity, in the future, to work with a team that can help you document your information, as has happened with L/L Research.

The protocol given, was suggested format, given by [source] to ensure purity of the material transmitted.

That's what I most wondered about, if it was your own interpretation from observing the Ra material or if it came through a channeling process. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

If I do interfere with this question being asked, I am sorry.

Only to the extent that I wasn't sure whether the information was from Carla, Ra, or your own process, and now I thank you for making that obvious.

I will try to ask [source] for more information when time permits. It will take some preparations and time given my busy schedule.

Please don't feel any burden about that on behalf of my questions. The material Carla has already brought forth may well take me the rest of this life time to work through.

The net result of all of this, I am deeply humbled, and try every day to live the LOO. It is easier said than done.

I completely agree.

---

Steve,

That's a great question, but if it were me, I would not approach it this way. I would first ask the channeler to challenge the entity in the highest form of love that the channeler knows of. That way, you *know* the information is going to be love-based and most probably with minimal distortions.

That makes sense. I see that this also honors Carla's intention more than re-using her exact words. If other people are not also mystical Christians, they have a different language of inspiration or ideas about ultimate love.

I will mention this... PLEASE do not channel on your own! It is a very dangerous proposition. It's like playing roulette. You may get lucky and attract a loving entity, but you also may attract a sly entity who at first says loving things but slowly begins slipping in negative or fear-based statements without you noticing. Before you know it, you'd be totally detuned.

Carla asks, and I agree 100% on this, that we should only consciously channel our higher Selves. If we do decide to channel outside of ourselves...

I had seen those precautions. At this time, I have more than enough material to consider with what has already been brought forth; and my life has already been turned upside down enough so that I won't seek an additional shake. Thanks for looking out for my safety and I hope that your reminder will save someone else some trouble, too.

[Steppingfeet]

My nose tells me as well that the purity of the L/L channeling is outstanding. But who instituted the Doctrine of Infallibility? My memory is that both Messrs. Ra and Elkins corrected mistakes made in previous sessions. So, maybe they missed some? I don't know.

Dear Peregrine, I presume that you address what you feel is a collective tendency among Law of One readers to ascribe infallibility to the ones known as Ra. To whatever extent I have contributed to this perception with my own words, I wish to offer a correction to this misunderstanding.

What I meant to communicate was not that Ra was infallible, merely that *I* am infallible. As such, if I say something (like the Law of One material) is completely and indisputably true, it therefore, as a consequence of my own infallibility, *must* be true. Makes sense, right?

You see, it is a subtle distinction. Ra’s own impossibility of making an error in communication (for whatever “error” means) derives not from their own infallibility, but from that which I attribute to it.

: ) Okay, I am just being a doofus. I consider neither myself nor Ra to be infallible. I was just trying to communicate in my earlier posting that what draws me to the material is my perception of the quality of the undistortedness of the material.

It is the only source I am aware of in which we hear directly from those in a position much closer to the unitary mystery of infinity with little to no human interference or filtering. ("Position" being a highly relevant and debatable term, considering that all things are one.)

While I did not find 100% of the content of the Law of One books to be helpful to my own path, and while there is material that I gloss over when reading, it is the only source of information outside of my own being that I trust above any other.

Whereas I am often in a morass of personal confusion regarding the choices of my life and the perception of self and other, Ra’s words are infinitely reliable and sturdy, a bulwark of integrity, impeccability, and purity – the perfect manifesto of love, wisdom, and power.

Btw, I looked up “infallible” when composing this reply. Definitions include:

1. absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.
2. unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain: an infallible remedy.
3. not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle.

*To me*, I would consider the material infallible in the sense of the first definition, maybe the second, but definitely not the third.

(please wait a second while I get my heretic hat on...)

An unbeliever in our midst! If there is one thing we promote here Lavazza, it is conformity of thought. Your divine right to your opinion is just not going fly here. No sir. Uh uh.

JOKING. JOKING. JOKING. Anyone who reads my babbling, please make note that I often prefer the non-serious route at first. Though I will usually identify non-seriousness as such.

I suppose the way the line gets drawn for me is my belief that Ra is fallible. When we decide that Ra is indeed infallible, then we can proceed to rationalize such things as moon bases, underwater bases, big foot(feet?), light speed space craft, etc. and etc.

I don’t know that I’ve met another who feels that Ra is infallible in the sense of being beyond the possibility of error. However, many entities, like myself, tend to genuinely feel that the material is so rigorously honest, consistent, and brimming with integrity that the “far-fetched” becomes much more plausible and worthy of consideration.

I was just talking with βαθμιαίος a couple of weeks ago about this particular concept. That being that the credibility of information depends as much upon the source of information as the content of the information itself. Two different people can tell me the same story. If I perceive one of those two as an honest person who has repeatedly demonstrated their credibility in the past, I am likely to consider the merit of their story regardless of any argument to the contrary in my mind. If I perceive one of the two as being skilled in the arts of "BS", then I will be inclined to roll the eyes and say, “Suuuurrrre.” : )

Now then, Monica made an excellent point in that a negative cannot be proven, this is true. May be that they are all true. But it requires a stretch of the imagination to make these things work, a great stretch and the invalidation of many, many things that we know to be true about our world today. Social memory complexes do not require this sort of stretch and they do not require the invalidation of science and history- they are beyond our dimension entirely so there is no conflict.

This point is not precisely central to the argument but I would contend that a belief in the concept of the social memory complex, especially one originating on Venus, is a radical rejection of many of the tenets of scientific, religious, and historical understanding. In fact, I would say that the existence of the social memory complex would challenge and upset the overarching collective paradigm of thought currently operating on planet Earth.

You would have to accept that:

a) Intelligent, conscious life on other planets is possible
b) Consciousness, not matter is primary
c) Telepathy is not only possible but natural
d) Shared memory is possible
e) We are currently experiencing a curriculum of spiritual evolution in an infinite creation of eternity and spaceless-ness
f) Space and Time are nothing as we conceive of them

… among many other implications and ramifications that my brain-processor can not even fathom at the moment.

It may also be worth mentioning that we also cannot prove or disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster…

Pictures are surfacing… people are speaking up…

coffee cups orbiting Neptune

HaHaHa!

Your mentioning (Monica) of the pyramids is another good example, because I extend the same sort of examination towards that topic. It was actually instrumental in my decision to consciously decide that TLOO should not be my only source in making up my spiritual belief system. I now examine a wider range of works and find value in seeing where they overlap, and where they do not. In that way I have been able to get a better understanding of "the bigger picture", so to speak.

Funny that Ra’s version of the origin and purpose of the pyramids was the catalyst which galvanized you into augmenting your seeking with the aid of other sources – because, in my case, the presentation of the pyramids in the Law of One books helped to further reinforce the validity of the material to me.

At any rate, it is good indeed to seek elsewhere! My own seeking definitely moves beyond the Law of One material and makes use of other sources of info. Review Ra's own words about combining and synthesizing various understandings in order to "enhance the seeking process":

Session #15, Book I:
QUESTIONER: Yesterday you stated that “the harvest is now. There is not at this time any reason to include efforts along this line of longevity, but rather to encourage efforts to seek the heart of self. This which resides clearly in the violet-ray energy field will determine the harvest of the mind/body/spirit complex.” Could you tell us the best way to seek the heart of self?

RA: I am Ra. We have given you this information in several wordings. However, we can only say the material for your understanding is the self: the mind/body/spirit complex. You have been given information upon healing, as you call this distortion. This information may be seen in a more general context as ways to understand the self. The understanding, experiencing, accepting, and merging of self with self and other-self, and finally with the Creator, is the path to the heart of self. In each infinitesimal part of your self resides the One in all of Its power.

Therefore, we can only encourage these lines of contemplation or prayer as a means of subjectively/objectively using or combining various understandings to enhance the seeking process. Without such a method of reversing the analytical process, one could not integrate into unity the many understandings gained in such seeking.

The original guidelines drafted for the DC forums by Jeremy W. said that, “We feel that the Law of One represents a complete body of spiritual teaching…”. As you may know, we built the Bring4th guidelines on the basis of Jeremy’s previous set of guidelines. In the process of evolving them for use on this particular forum, we decided to chuck the “complete body of spiritual teaching” statement. I personally do not feel that the Law of One – or any external source of information for that matter – can be “complete”.

What I do feel about the Law of One is that it is the most inclusive, all-encompassing philosophy I have ever encountered. Any and all of Earth’s wisdom traditions, personal philosophies, or contemporary channeled material can be accommodated by the Law of One. For me, it is at once foundation and backbone of the thought structure of my seeking – a framework through which the world, my self, and others can be viewed.

It is to the entity utilizing the framework to determine the shape, purpose, and nature of the structure being created.

Anyhow, I am indeed happy to let the topic rest and echo again my respect for what anyone else chooses to believe in

Thank you for going out of your way twice in your last two postings to say that you respect what anyone else chooses to believe. I think that it is statements like these that make Bring4th thrive and enhance the lives of any who derive benefit from reading and/or participating in these forums.

If I may offer my own note of respect: I, too, respect what each brings to the table of discussion. May not always agree with it, of course, but I honor that which each has determined to be true for themselves. If ever anyone feels anything less than respect from me, please let me know – I never consciously intend anything less and would seek to make amends immediately.

And at the end of the day, what's really important is that the Law of One does contain so many gems of wisdom that ring true to the heart, I'm sure we can all agree... and AMEN!

Here here!

Love/Light,
GLB

PS: Monica, do you think we should relocate this sub-thread in LIFE or OLIO and re-title it “The Plausible and the Implausible”, or something along those lines?

PPS: Steve, well said about the channeling! Your retention of the channeling instruction is impressive.

[Questioner]

PS: Monica, do you think we should relocate this sub-thread in LIFE or OLIO and re-title it “The Plausible and the Implausible”, or something along those lines?

Without speaking for Monica, my point of view is that there are now three different questions being answered in this one thread.

There is a lot of discussion of my original question, what is a good way to understand Carla's pre-channeling challenge to entities?

And two other questions have come up for discussion, different than my original question: What part of the Law of One material do you find unbelievable? And the related question, Do you consider Ra infallible?

It seems to me all three questions - my original one and the two new ones - all do relate to the Law of One material.

I think it would be helpful to split off at least one of those topics to its own thread.

[Lavazza]

Cheers GLB, you have never come across as disrespectful, quite the contrary. And your response was a pleasure to read I too am very proud of our forum and the discourse that it promotes, especially when we are able to disagree and keep the peace (a rarity on the internet, just examine any youtube comment column as a comparison.. lol!)

We definitely see the same thing differently, which is only natural in a subjective existence as we exist in. For example, I see the color blue... how do I know that what other people call blue is really the same hue that I am seeing?

Not in the spirit of attempting to win an argument, I think it might be fun to further look at this notion of believability, again with the example of an advanced civilization on Venus some millions (or billions?) of years ago. The paradigm upsetters you listed certainly are exactly that. Any of those would send shock waves through society, but amazingly almost all of them are scientifically viable. Lets take a look at each one, and then I'll try and show why I think an ancient Venusian civilization is more plausible then moon bases (for fun of course, I am not trying to tell anyone they are 'wrong'... just my views. Ok, enough with the disclaimers):

You would have to accept that:

a) Intelligent, conscious life on other planets is possible

This is actually something that most people actually accept as true these days. Nobody knows where they are, what they're like, if we'll ever find them, etc., but the very size and scope of the universe demands that life as we know it surely must exist elsewhere. The famous Drake equation speaks to this, and there are viable programs in science more or less centered on the pursuit of ET life, such as the SETI program and the Kepplar telescope which was made for the purpose of finding Earth like planets.

b) Consciousness, not matter is primary

This is not proven, but is highly suggested by Quantum Mechanics. Not many people in the general public really understand what QM is really about, and even scientists themselves do not fully understand all of the workings of QM, but nevertheless QM has be proven to be true so many times that it has become accepted as fact in physics. Not just this, but the accuracy to which QM works is so fine that you can make the analogy of being able to measure the length of the North American continent with an error range of the width of a human hair. The fun part is, there are elements of QM that materialistic science calls 'Spooky'. For example, the famous double-slit experiment. Is it a particle or a wave? Or the concept of Quantum entanglement, that is to say that if you influence the spin of a particle, it's entangled partner will automatically begin spinning in that same direction. It doesn't matter if the particles are in the same room together, or if they are on opposite ends of the universe, it's all instantaneous, and consciousness driven. As odd as it may seem, consciousness is beginning to look like the foundation of the universe, not matter, and science is being forced to accept this because of the amazing accuracy and reliablitiy of quantum calculations.

c) Telepathy is not only possible but natural

Another paradigm buster, for sure. However these things have been tested and proven in science, albeit not yet accepted in the mainstream due to a rather sizable taboo in our system. Dean Radin and others have carried these experiments out with great scientific care to eliminate other possible explanations at the institute of Noetic sciences.

Dean Radin at Google: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_o...c_Sciences
http://www.noetic.org/

d) Shared memory is possible

This is of course not proven, however the functioning of Quantum mechanics and the viability of telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance and other things (in my view) allows for this to be true as well. It's worth mentioning a project called 'The Global Consciousness' project that is based out of Princeton university. It's a long explanation, but in short it measures the effect that collective humanity's consciousness has on random number generators, at moments where the world is focused on something (like Obama's inauguration, Princess Diana's funeral, 9/11 and so on). The result is that yes, the collective consciousness does have an effect which effectively shows mind over matter interaction. This is still not shared memory, but it is it's next door neighbor in my opinion.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

e) We are currently experiencing a curriculum of spiritual evolution in an infinite creation of eternity and spaceless-ness

This will probably never be proven by science, but there are many, many sources that point to this (past life and in-between life regression, NDE, as well as a host of other things).

Michael Newton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QDT58Q6Zxo
Dannion Brikley: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...7569&hl=es#

f) Space and Time are nothing as we conceive of them

This is also commonly accepted among the leading minds in science, (not so much your average Joe). Einstein showed that time and space are both highly malleable with general and special relativity as the most basic example... Individuals who study the big bang, quantum mechanics, string theory, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, galactic interactions, gravity, theoretical particles and so forth all must accept that time and space are not what they seem to be in order to make any progress in their respective fields.

Now as to aliens living on Venus a long time ago, sure, it sounds like a big stretch. Until we recall that planets are ever changing, "living" (in a loose sense) things that have a tendency to eliminate all traces of whatever activity entities may have enjoyed there. There was a documentary on this History channel a while back, called 'Life after People'. The concept was that one day, all humans suddenly just disappear. How long would it take for Earth to reclaim the world? Surprisingly, things like roads don't even last more than 20-40 years before being reduced to rubble by plants. The tallest and sturdiest buildings fall over in 100 years. And the sturdiest man made object of all time, the Hoover Dam, will fall apart in 1000 years. Metals and other things like that rot too, eventually, although it takes much longer for that to happen. In short, eventually there will be absolutely no trace that we were ever here. This is what I suspect happened on Venus (if it ever happened... see, the heretic hat just came on again! )

So, with all of those responses in mind, can we extend the same plausibility towards moon bases? The problem and (one of) the key differences is that I see is that it is not beyond our ability to disprove. We can't go back in time to examine Venus as it was during Ra's hayday, but we can look at the moon, and indeed even the dark side of the moon. Where are the bases? Subterranean moon bases then? Cloaking device hidden bases? Even those things might be possible, but what is the more likely explanation? That the government is hiding super futuristic, amazingly high-tech capabilities and has special bases on the moon or under the oceans, or that the comment made by Ra (for whatever reason, confusion, distortion, fill in the blank) was not correct? Or lets examine the logical errors, if we have what I would call such high technology as to have secret bases on the moon, why are we still pouring billions of dollars in to space shuttle technology at NASA? Or the ISS (international space station)? With a government that gets sooo caught up with money problems when it comes to balancing the budget or passing new bills, providing health care, etc. does it make any sense at all to continue funding obsolete space technology? The implications of the government having moon bases are so large and so far reaching... the only way they could possibly exist is a government cover-up so far reaching and widespread, and so fundamentally top secret as to be only possible in a work of fiction.

On the other hand, if a negative entity wished to discredit a group that was seeking to publish spiritual information, it might be a great topic to being up. Don and company were able to recognize this, which is why the information didn't get included in the original release of The Law of One books.

We live in a crazy world, could be that I'm way off, I can't prove a negative so we may never know! In fact, it would be cool if it WERE true, just so I could feel less confused about what Ra spoke of in the eighties. Untill that happens, I'm just not on board with it. Again, just what I believe, not a better or worse belief than what anyone else holds as true.

I love you all!

[Sacred Fool]

Returning to challenging (isn't it challenging to keep the focus on challenging), I just want to aver that the process of challenging helps in the process of defining/refining one's own energetic posture. By helping to reconcile one's deepest felt self (essentially) with one's external experience, it helps balance one's relationship of space/time to time/space.

The talk about the purity of the L/L-Ra connection versus other sources reminds me of how I used to get so confused when I'd hear "spiritual masters" say that any path is as good another; stick with what you've got. That made no sense to me until I read something Anandamayi Ma append onto that. She said they're all equivalent because they all lead you to the same goal >>> inside your own self.

It seems to me that the process of continuing to refine one's being and seek it's core Self is much aided by the challenging not only of other entities, but of concepts of self and, yes, one's own concepts of what is highest and best. This too can be refined, I would suppose. My guess is that it's personal dedication to this sort self-tuning that conduces to the crystallization of an entity.

I guess I should clarify that by "challenging" I don't mean necessarily acting the way I do and poking people's patterns and beliefs. I mean having a clear sense of what level of distortion you'll allow to be woven into your own personal energy field.

[Lavazza]

For what it's worth, I recently conversed with another one of my favorite channels (name intentionally withheld) on this subject.

(name) has stated very clearly many times that his intention is always to empower us and that we ought to avoid any source of information that seeks to control our lives.

That aside, I knew at the beginning of my channeling that if my own intentions were positive, it would not be possible to attract anything negative because unlike vibrations can't interact. In my view, the need to demand a declaration automatically creates a fear-reaction energy. I simply know that I can recognize what is and isn't positively oriented without demanding anything of anyone.

Finally, in my experience, what might pass as a negative entity through a channel usually turns out to be the channel's own negative ego posing as something else, rather than an actual entity from somewhere else.

& :idea:

[Sacred Fool]

(name)
Finally, in my experience, what might pass as a negative entity through a channel usually turns out to be the channel's own negative ego posing as something else, rather than an actual entity from somewhere else.

I guess I can say this w/o a hat on.

The business of self-deception is soooo critical to a discussion of a topic like this. I wonder why it didn't come up before. I've met so few people who factor this into their assessment of themselves that it's just a trifle shocking. It's one of the main reasons I can only be light-hearted about ANY ideology: I know that my capacity for self-deception will creep in no matter how smart and capable I think I am. I've just had to learn to allow for slop and error. The more I do that up front, the better I feel later on.

Maybe a sense of ideological veracity comes down to being mainly a matter of the heart. Maybe it's hard for proclaimers of heart-felt veracity to definitively connect with those who are probing these things with different organs of experience...if that makes any sense? If not, it was probably because another one of the damned negative entities promised to make me look intelligent and then left me hanging out to dry.


On another note, another enormously endearing quality of the LOO material is the way it does not claim to have everything all sewn up. Rather, "It begins and ends in mystery." There's a quality of freedom in that which reminds me of the the Robert Herrick poem below. That "brave vibration each way free" line just kills me. Hope it's not too racy for this forum.


WHENAS in silks my Julia goes
Then, then (methinks) how sweetly flows
That liquefaction of her clothes.

Next, when I cast mine eyes and see
That brave vibration each way free;
Oh how that glittering taketh me!


Not sure what sort of challenging would be called for here.

[Monica]

So, with all of those responses in mind, can we extend the same plausibility towards moon bases? The problem and (one of) the key differences is that I see is that it is not beyond our ability to disprove. We can't go back in time to examine Venus as it was during Ra's hayday, but we can look at the moon, and indeed even the dark side of the moon. Where are the bases? Subterranean moon bases then? Cloaking device hidden bases? Even those things might be possible, but what is the more likely explanation? That the government is hiding super futuristic, amazingly high-tech capabilities and has special bases on the moon or under the oceans, or that the comment made by Ra (for whatever reason, confusion, distortion, fill in the blank) was not correct?

I personally trust Ra (and my faith that it really was Ra) waaaaaaaay more than NASA. There is plenty of reason to doubt NASA's honesty and question their motives, but I find it implausible that Ra would have made such a mistake.

[Steppingfeet]

Carla Rueckert's time and energy are two precious resources not to be expended lightly, so I generally do not approach her with concerns which would take too much of either.

However in reading this thread, I noticed two questions that I thought a) Carla might enjoy answering and b) we would each benefit by that answer.

Please find the two questions below with Carla's responses to each:

(I think the questions were Questioners, so I will label them as such. If I am mistaken, please someone correct me.)

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.

Carla Rueckert: Hey, B4 Forum –

In answer to your present questions on this thread, I would say that David and I tune differently. David tunes before every session. His tuning consists of a spoken statement he crafted. It is quite beautiful. It is said from memory, and does not vary, as far as I know. He has assured me that it is adequate.

My process is more spontaneous in that although I have protections, prayers and hymns I use every time, if I am not satisfied with my tuning at any point I will continue, doing whatever I feel is needed (praying, singing, etc.) without being concerned for time constraints, until I have achieved the best focus I know how to achieve. I also use a “gatekeeper” for one last check before entering the final stage of tuning and challenging. Mine is a much more elaborate system of tuning than David’s.

I believe – but am not sure – that he feels that it is not necessary for him to challenge his source, which he characterizes as his higher self. His reasoning on calling that guidance system Ra is that he feels he is a wanderer from the Ra social memory complex, and therefore his higher self is of Ra. David does not claim that the two sources are the same. He has said to me a couple of times in years past that he would not want to try for the source channeled through L/L Research – clearly, the contact was a punishing one, physically.

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?

Carla Rueckert: One thing has been overlooked in this question, and that is that the channel does not add elements of protocol such as greetings and closings. The source does that, if it chooses to do so. If the channel/instrument is adding these elements artificially, it is meaningless since the instrument is diddling with the message received. That is a big no-no!

An element of my own channeling on which you may rely is that I follow the source’s offering completely, once I have determined to my satisfaction that the connection is appropriate. My opinions, hopefully, are laid to one side for the duration of the contact. In fact, I always pray that all concepts offered are the Creator’s and not my own. I would far rather maintain the integrity of my contact than answer anyone’s specific or fear-based questions.

So while you are perceptive in that the points of protocol you mention are definitely those which are characteristic of a good, positive channel, still, the only parts of the protocol within the control of the instrument are the tuning of the instrument and the group and the challenging of all spirits by the instrument before accepting contact. This is why I have worked so diligently over the years to develop my tuning and challenging techniques.

We tune the group as well as the channel here at L/L Research just before the session, usually by listening to an inspiring song and then saying the Lord’s Prayer, although we have been known to tune by Om-ing, singing as a group or telling jokes.

I would not recommend using the protocol of walking the circle in any other group except that one which we had during the Ra Contact, as it was developed very specifically to fit my biases and distortions. For instance, there is no sense in using incense, an opened Bible or a candle if those signals are not resonant for the instrument. We use no such artifacts in the conscious channeling I do presently, and have done continuously for 35 years.

To learn more about my tuning and challenging process, please go to Channeling Intensive Archive and click on sessions 3 and 4. These are the talks on tuning and challenging I gave when I was teaching an introductory channeling circle last year. I just repeated that teaching in a gathering of second-cycle channeling hopefuls this past weekend.

Thank you for your questions. Best of fortune with your concerns and much L/L - Carla

(PS from GLB: Lavazza, great reply earlier! I'd like to reply myself but fear I will not be able to do so in the near future.)

[carrie]

I wonder if you might have an opportunity, in the future, to work with a team that can help you document your information, as has happened with L/L Research.

I don't know, many of these happened more than 10 years ago. The most perplexing question when I channeled was, if I can remember: "Can I join you?"

These entities took me and show me upon their abode, and I was with them.

Whether or not it was right or wrong, I have been trying to seek answers for many years, religion after religion, person after person, they bear no answers to the questions or experiences I have been into.

The question of whether it was considered self-deceit, I have no answer for the experiences, be it, encoding of two "strands that intertwine with each other", or "designing plant", or "star formation", to the doing "harvest".

Whether you dismiss the above statements as outright fabrication or deceit, that is your choice. I know what I been through, the closest to the answers i search, I found is The Law of One.

The most touching thing is how deep the Father's love, that all of us are one, that we are all His children. The Father loves us very deeply and yearns for us to come back to Him. In order for us to come back to Him, we must ourselves show that we love, as in, give without condition, and continue to love, that our love shines from our heart, and shine so bright (i.e., gain polarity) to reach the next stage of development.

Each and every day of our lives, is to learn lessons, each lesson is to give love, warmth, kindness and compassion. If we do not learn the lessons, these lessons will repeat. This place is an illusion, but for each day, for the children to show their love unto others.

[Questioner]

Carla Rueckert's time and energy are two precious resources not to be expended lightly, so I generally do not approach her with concerns which would take too much of either.

However in reading this thread, I noticed two questions that I thought a) Carla might enjoy answering and b) we would each benefit by that answer.

Thank you, GLB. That's why I asked in the forums, rather than trying to contact her directly.

I'm delighted that you saw fit to forward my questions and that she was interested to answer.

Thank you, Carla, for your explanations. They are very helpful to help me understand more about your process, and about David's process. I appreciate your taking the time to answer here. And thank you so much, along with the whole LL team, for your work and all of the inspiring material you have shared with the world!

---

Whether you dismiss the above statements as outright fabrication or deceit, that is your choice.

Carrie, I hope I've not implied anything of the kind. I see no reason to suppose that you have anything less than complete sincerity in sharing your experience, as best as you understand it.

I appreciate that you mention themes of love, lesson, compassion and unity. It feels to me that those themes are in harmony with the lessons of the Law of One material as I am beginning to understand it. Thanks for being on the forum. I look forward to our learning more together about how to apply these concepts in the current lifetime for each of us.

---

Edited to mention that I got friendly, helpful response from the moderators on David's forum. They didn't post my thread there, but they did confirm and expand on what Carla wrote. To respect their wishes, I asked if it's OK with them for me to post their private messages here. I am waiting to hear back.

[Tenet Nosce]

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]

Hello, Questioner! Welcome to the forum!

I have pondered many of the same ideas myself. What a coincidence that you had written about it here in times past!

I am currently discussing these ideas in:

An appreciation of 'Outlier' Don Elkins
Earth Changes (Shifting)
More Positive but Less Harvestable
1984.04.15 First Hatonn Contact After Ra
2011.04.02 - Siddhartha Buddha
Guardians of the quarantine doesnt seem infallible

---

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...

That is interesting. Do you suppose the transmission would have been received any differently, had another challenge been used?

---

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.

This is a very discerning observation. Thanks for providing this picture! I mimic Your train of thought very closely.

---

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.

Very true. Here is a Law of One search for prefer. Quite revealing!

---

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.

Me, too. Do you happen to recall which session that was?

---

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.

Having listened to the tapes would give you a somewhat unique perspective! I never bought into the idea that the contact had been switched, however I do think there might be some interference at play at the 4D level.

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...

I concur that the placement of the objects is trivial. However the choice of objects is not, nor is the prayer used before receiving the transmission. My interest has been more along the lines of where the words "wrong" and "should" appear in the query. I think this may be a source of potential distortion.

---

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.

Yes. Having been introduced to the Law of One through David Wilcock as well, I have always been curious as to the link between he and L/L Research. Both parties seem to be pretty tight-lipped about it, and so I must assume there is a good reason.

I just found this on a Google search for don elkins suicide. I don't know if you had come across this, but it was new to me.

Any researcher trying to draw comparisons between my life and those of the Law of One team, be advised... I was the first person to live in Don Elkins' room after he committed suicide, nearly 20 years later. I pick up ALL the energies off of the areas I sleep in whether I want to or not. I slept on the "Ra Bed" that the original Law of One readings were done off of for the first month I was there. All the frozen suicide thoughtforms in Don's room greeted me very strongly - the second or third night I slept in there I had a terrifying dream where gov. spooks shot my head off and I was in my astral body, trying to move my arms to feel if I still had a head. I didn't even take Don's original decorations off the wall and repaint to claim the room as my own until a month into the process.

---

The suggested channel method should be:

This is an interesting meta breakdown of channeled material. Very insightful, thanks for sharing!

---

So, since there is no way to prove conclusively that there aren't moon bases or undersea bases, I see no reason to doubt Ra's words on these.

Funny that Ra didn't mention much about subterranean cities or alien gods.