(08-27-2017, 08:48 PM)JustLikeYou Wrote: Hi everyone. I haven't contributed much here in quite some time. I have been reflecting and writing, though. I just recently completed a 60 page examination of the archetypes that some of you may find useful. It is my most recent work.

Here is a link:

http://josephdartez.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/An-Archetype-Workbook.pdf

(09-15-2018, 10:46 PM)Taralie Peterdaughter Wrote: Question. In the last section the chapter on potentiators, you draw distinction in how the mind, body, spirits interact. Why do you think the spirit doesn't directly interact with the body? But always through the mind......i'm not sure I agree and would love to hear very much why you make this assertion.
Thanks!!!!

(09-15-2018, 02:36 PM)peregrine Wrote: Anyhow, have you ever noticed Q'uo, Latwii and that gang ever mentioning the archetypes?  Probably there's a little something mentioned somewhere, but doggone little.  Why do you think that might be?  Obviously, it must, in part, be a function of the questioning.  But isn't it interesting that the archee-types are almost never referenced in the ordinary discussion of spiritual evolution by these prominent Confederation sources?

1. The Ra contact never got to that information until dozens of sessions in, after trance became so routine to Carla that it started to directly cause her weariness. It's possible that the conscious channeling is simply not deep enough to afford this instruction, or the intentions of the participants preclude this information somehow.
   
2. It's important to keep in mind that most of Ra's discussion that we consider pertaining to the archetypal mind uses the vehicle of the tarot, and the tarot may be more relevant to Ra's message than other Confederation sources' simply because of its Venusian pedigree. There may be lots of discussion of the archetypal mind that just doesn't use this easily identified symbology.
   
3. Those driving contact with Confederation entities at L/L Research have not embarked on the same systematic study and questioning that Don and the gang pursued. They literally have not asked for instruction the way Don did, at least to my knowledge.
   

(09-15-2018, 02:36 PM)peregrine Wrote: Anyhow, have you ever noticed Q'uo, Latwii and that gang ever mentioning the archetypes?  Probably there's a little something mentioned somewhere, but doggone little.  Why do you think that might be?  Obviously, it must, in part, be a function of the questioning.  But isn't it interesting that the archee-types are almost never referenced in the ordinary discussion of spiritual evolution by these prominent Confederation sources?

(09-18-2018, 10:02 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: Once you recognize the movements of energy that invoke the archetypes, you can see the description of those movements of energy appear everywhere.

There are quite a few that I have found that do explicitly describe and expound upon specific archetypes.

rva_jeremy Wrote:It's important to keep in mind that most of Ra's discussion that we consider pertaining to the archetypal mind uses the vehicle of the tarot, and the tarot may be more relevant to Ra's message than other Confederation sources' simply because of its Venusian pedigree. There may be lots of discussion of the archetypal mind that just doesn't use this easily identified symbology.

J and   Q Wrote:J: Q’uo, I have one. I have been contemplating the archetypes of catalyst and experience. As I have modeled these in my mind, this is a unified concept of learning, separated solely by the veil—catalyst being this concept before the veil in the subconscious, and experience being this concept in the conscious increment life. Does this capture a sufficient amount of the significance of this concept, or am I missing some subtleties of this that you could comment on? Thank you.

Q’uo: I am Q’uo and we believe we understand your query, my brother. What you say is correct, and in fact, insightful, with regard to the way catalyst and experience function in the veiled condition. That is to say, that the veil does introduce a kind of break between the functioning of catalyst and the functioning of experience that can arise from it. However, it is also true that the archetypes have their distinct being independently of the question of the veiling. This constitutes an interesting subject of investigation. We will attempt to be somewhat brief in our address to it, and invite further queries at some future time.
The catalyst can, in a general sense, be described as that which occurs—that which occurs particularly within the sphere of action and interaction of a mind/body/spirit complex. What occurs, however, as it is received by that mind/body/spirit complex, will be subject to interpretation, and subject to a principle of selection with regard to what merits further focus. This process, as you point out, can be largely unconscious when one is in the veiled condition. The result being that, effectively speaking, there can be a conflation between the concept of catalyst and the concept of experience, for one’s access to the catalyst is always already characterized as one’s experience.
In a condition which is not veiled, the distinctness of those two elements is more on display, and that can have the result that a greater freedom, shall we say, can be shown, in experience making its selection from its catalyst concerning that which will be taken in as significant from that catalyst. This, we believe, gives the beginning of an approach to an answer to your query, my brother.

(09-18-2018, 03:07 PM)peregrine Wrote: Does this strike you as rather different from most questions posed in these sessions?  It seems almost absurdly abstract to moi.  I wonder how hard it would be--and how much would be lost and gained--to cast the dialogue in plain English (instead of ceremonial Ra-sprach)?  Might that be refreshingly practical?

(09-18-2018, 05:03 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote:

(09-18-2018, 03:07 PM)peregrine Wrote: Does this strike you as rather different from most questions posed in these sessions?  It seems almost absurdly abstract to moi.  I wonder how hard it would be--and how much would be lost and gained--to cast the dialogue in plain English (instead of ceremonial Ra-sprach)?  Might that be refreshingly practical?

I think part of the whole thing with the archetypes is that the student needs to do a good deal of work on their own before they can freely be taught by entities on the other side of the veil.

The answer doesn't seem that abstract to me. From my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong, Jeremy) - Jeremy is asking about the process of catalyst/experience, and if experience is catalyst having been distilled to the other side of the veil. Q'uo basically says no and says that basically there is more nuance than that, because much processing of catalyst remains unconscious, and that, because of the veil, it's easy to conflate what is catalyst and what is actually distilled experience. Before the veil, things were obviously not hidden. But with the veiling, there is still a lot of confusion in this process.

I think there is a flaw in Jeremy's question (no offense!) because, for the mind cycle, while Catalyst is the female portion, and Experience in the male, Catalyst is the female portion ennobled by the conscious mind, and Experience is the conscious mind ennobled by the subconscious mind. So the subconscious mind is still thoroughly in play in the Experience card even though it is represented by the male principle. I believe the concept that Jeremy is talking about, distilling experience to the point of piercing the veil for use in a conscious manner, is more of a Great Way type energy.

So, yeah, I think you have to be knee-deep to be able to grok meaning from this type of question/answer. Not saying I have all the answers, either. I could be entirely wrong by this interpretation. It's my understanding, though, that the archetypes are a language that we learn so that we can communicate with our subconscious and intuition more thoroughly. Beyond that, there's not a lot to them - but of course, communicating with the subconscious is communicating with infinity, so it's well worth the effort IMO.

(09-18-2018, 11:30 PM)peregrine Wrote: So, please help me out here, Jade.  Having verbalized all that above, does it assist you in any way?  Does it guide you or comfort you, or is it all functionally abstract?

Please compare it to this mundane line of thinking.  As I go through my day, various experiences befall me and from time to time a particular snippet of experience seems to have a charge to it which is higher than random.  I try to mull these charged items over because I suspect they might be interesting catalyst.  Some of these may have intrinsic charge, like a fist fight, and some may be charged only to me because my mind is drawing my attention to them.  Exploring the catalyst often leads to experience inspired by that exploration. Over the years, after having discharged thousands of these things, my conscious relationship with my mind, conscious and otherwise, has deepened because our ability to talk to one another has become far more facile.

Am I wrong or is this not a construct that is 10 times more practical than being able to say things like, the experience of the mind is ennobled by the subconscious?  I just don’t see (yet, perhaps?) how the tarot deck is even in that league of spiritual utility.


On the other hand, maybe this post is just me talking to myself?  I mean, maybe my unconscious is consciously talking to my conscious, which is unconscious of this?

(09-19-2018, 12:30 AM)Taralie Peterdaughter Wrote: why do you think Carla would be uncomfortable saying "significator of spirit"?    I mean she has dedicated her life to this work.  I spent 3 hours one night reading about it and I almost got it down.  it seems rude.

(09-18-2018, 05:03 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: The answer doesn't seem that abstract to me. From my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong, Jeremy) - Jeremy is asking about the process of catalyst/experience, and if experience is catalyst having been distilled to the other side of the veil. Q'uo basically says no and says that basically there is more nuance than that, because much processing of catalyst remains unconscious, and that, because of the veil, it's easy to conflate what is catalyst and what is actually distilled experience. Before the veil, things were obviously not hidden. But with the veiling, there is still a lot of confusion in this process.

(09-18-2018, 05:03 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: I think there is a flaw in Jeremy's question (no offense!) because, for the mind cycle, while Catalyst is the female portion, and Experience in the male, Catalyst is the female portion ennobled by the conscious mind, and Experience is the conscious mind ennobled by the subconscious mind. So the subconscious mind is still thoroughly in play in the Experience card even though it is represented by the male principle. I believe the concept that Jeremy is talking about, distilling experience to the point of piercing the veil for use in a conscious manner, is more of a Great Way type energy.

(09-19-2018, 11:45 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: For instance, I find the concept of courting vs plundering immensely valuable. I also think it's important to know that "both the virginal and prostituted deep mind invite and await the reaching" - that you will have synchronicities and confirmations that will lead you down either path. So having a frame of reference for which deep mind I am courting I have found helpful.

(09-19-2018, 03:30 PM)rva_jeremy Wrote: I'm on record as not finding a great deal of value in talking about the archetypes much. However, I think if we were to make a dedicated study of the archetypes and involve Q'uo as a teacher (who, after all, includes Ra as a component of their complex), we would be able to have dialogues that would shed light on the subject, however narrowly subjective and personal the study may be. I often keep in mind that the Ra contact only affords us an understanding of archetypes in terms of what three people were able to see, grok, and explore. There is likely much, much, much more.

(09-21-2018, 02:46 AM)peregrine Wrote: They were meant merely as memory aids.  I suspect the Tarot deck was intended the same way, as a pictorial summation of detailed teachings given over many years.  The problem for us is that we're getting the information in a backwards manner where Don Elkins was guessing about the symbols and trying to unscramble the codes, rather than receiving direct teaching.  I'm suggesting that this is the opposite of how the pictographs were intended to work.  And I'm suggesting that this accounts for the frustration some of us feel.  Of course, on the other hand, we can only work with what we have.

Quote:88.18 Questioner: I will ask the following questions to clear up possibly only the method of teaching these concepts which may give me important clues to understanding the concepts themselves. Did Ra use cards similar to the tarot cards for the training purpose in third density?

Ra: I am Ra. No.




88.19 Questioner: What did Ra use in third density?

Ra: I am Ra. You are aware in your attempts at magical visualization of the mental configuration of sometimes rather complex visualizations. These are mental and drawn with the mind. Another example well-known in your culture is the visualization, in your mass, of the distortion of the love of the One Infinite Creator called Christianity, wherein a small portion of your foodstuffs is seen to be a mentally configured but entirely real man, the man known to you as Jehoshua or, as you call this entity now, Jesus. It was by this method of sustained visualization over a period of training that we worked with these concepts.

These concepts were occasionally drawn. However, the concept of one visualization per card was not thought of by us.



88.20 Questioner: Well, how did the teacher relay information to the student with respect to visualization?

Ra: I am Ra. The process was cabalistic; that is, of the oral tradition of mouth to ear.



88.21 Questioner: Then when Ra attempted to teach the Egyptians the concept of the tarot, was the same process used, or a different one?

Ra: I am Ra. The same process was used. However, those which were teach/learners after us first drew these images to the best of their ability within the place of initiation and later began the use of what you call cards bearing these visualizations’ representations.

Quote:Ra: I am Ra. The principle which moves in accordance with the dynamics of teach/learning with most efficiency is constancy. We could explore the archetypical mind using that set of images produced by the one known as Fathman or we could use those which have been used.

In point of fact, those which are being used have some subtleties which enrich the questioning. As we have said, this set of images is not that which we gave. This is not material. We could use any of a multitude of devised tarot sets. Although this must be at the discretion of the questioner, we suggest the maintaining of one and only one set of distorted images to be used for the querying and note that the images you now use are good.

(09-21-2018, 11:35 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: Also, if the teachers in Egypt of these images were incarnate, or walking in their 6th density forms on this planet or whatever, there isn't the barrier of free will/the veil/transmitting information through densities. As I've said before, I think these are a way to begin a dialogue with the subconscious. This is why Ra wanted people to ponder them on their own, instead of saying "This is what the flying turtle means." Ra also says that anyone can do this work with any set of images. It's about creating a language so that the subconscious can speak to you through that language, through that set of imagery to which you have attached personal resonance and meaning.

(09-21-2018, 12:02 PM)peregrine Wrote:

(09-21-2018, 11:35 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: Also, if the teachers in Egypt of these images were incarnate, or walking in their 6th density forms on this planet or whatever, there isn't the barrier of free will/the veil/transmitting information through densities. As I've said before, I think these are a way to begin a dialogue with the subconscious. This is why Ra wanted people to ponder them on their own, instead of saying "This is what the flying turtle means." Ra also says that anyone can do this work with any set of images. It's about creating a language so that the subconscious can speak to you through that language, through that set of imagery to which you have attached personal resonance and meaning.

Yes, I suppose one can do so.  Does it not have a feeling of reverse order to you though?  To me it feels like taking someone's condensed lecture notes and attempting to squeeze meaning from them and constructing some kind of framework of reality, instead of using the verbal teaching (channeling sessions) on a given archetypal  topic (Choice, for example) and then distilling one's own notes.  After that, then, perhaps comparing your understanding to the cards and others' ideas so as to possibly broaden your own base of comprehension.  Obviously, anyone studying the cards is doing this to some extent by default, even if they use the cards as a point of departure rather than the verbal teachings.  I'm just left a teensy bit uncomfortable by the deep veneration given to the Egyptian "lecture notes," which were not, as Plenum points out, created by Ra.  (So, I guess it just comes down to a personal problem.  After all, it's all about ME, isn't it?  Ha ha ha!  <subtle evil laughter!>)

(09-21-2018, 02:46 AM)peregrine Wrote: I suspect the Tarot deck was intended the same way, as a pictorial summation of detailed teachings given over many years.  The problem for us is that we're getting the information in a backwards manner where Don Elkins was guessing about the symbols and trying to unscramble the codes, rather than receiving direct teaching.  I'm suggesting that this is the opposite of how the pictographs were intended to work.  And I'm suggesting that this accounts for the frustration some of us feel.