+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Strictly Law of One Material (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: dinos and bipeds (/showthread.php?tid=11301)
dinos and bipeds - Bluebell - 06-25-2015
Quote:30.6 Questioner: Thank you. I don’t wish to cover ground that we have covered before but it sometimes is helpful to restate these concepts for complete clarity since words are a poor tool for what we do.
Just as a passing point, I was wondering, in— on this planet during the second density I believe there was habitation at the same time/space of bipedal entities and what we call the dinosaurs. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.
30.7 Questioner: These two types of entities seem to be incompatible, you might say, with each other. I don’t know. Can you tell me the reason behind both types of entities inhabiting the same space/time?
Ra: I am Ra. Consider the workings of free will as applied to evolution. There are paths that the mind/body complex follows in an attempt to survive, to reproduce, and to seek in its fashion that which is unconsciously felt as the potential for growth; these two arenas or paths of development being two among many.
is this monkeys? or something else?
RE: dinos and bipeds - VanAlioSaldo - 06-25-2015
I think he intends to mean a human biped, or our humanoid ancestors back then who may or may not have been human the way we are...
Good question though..
RE: dinos and bipeds - sunnysideup - 06-25-2015
Yeah I think Ra is referring to the first bipedal placental mammals, the australopithecines.
RE: dinos and bipeds - Bluebell - 06-25-2015
so were those 2D?
RE: dinos and bipeds - sunnysideup - 06-25-2015
They went extinct/evolved about 2 million years ago so I would think they were 2D.
RE: dinos and bipeds - Bring4th_Austin - 06-25-2015
I also think Ra could have interpreted Don's question very literally, especially given their explication on evolution. Bipedal simply means standing on 2 legs. There were many dinosaurs which were bipedal. There were also smaller mammals which primarily used two legs, but not in the same way as humans (think hopping rodents, etc.)
RE: dinos and bipeds - VanAlioSaldo - 06-25-2015
Its my understanding Ra also is aware of the mental intent behind questions, they ask Don to align his thoughts with his words too at one point.
If we only knew what Don was thinking.like Ra did, we'd know the context of this question.
I think sunny got it though. Those bipeds were probably high density self aware 2D beings ready to be 'Evolved'.
RE: dinos and bipeds - Bluebell - 06-25-2015
(06-25-2015, 12:48 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: I also think Ra could have interpreted Don's question very literally, especially given their explication on evolution. Bipedal simply means standing on 2 legs. There were many dinosaurs which were bipedal. There were also smaller mammals which primarily used two legs, but not in the same way as humans (think hopping rodents, etc.)
well wouldn't it be kind of douchy of Ra to not mention that bipedal means dino? also, coexistence implies non-dino bipedal.
RE: dinos and bipeds - Bring4th_Austin - 06-25-2015
(06-25-2015, 01:52 PM)Bluebell Wrote:(06-25-2015, 12:48 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: I also think Ra could have interpreted Don's question very literally, especially given their explication on evolution. Bipedal simply means standing on 2 legs. There were many dinosaurs which were bipedal. There were also smaller mammals which primarily used two legs, but not in the same way as humans (think hopping rodents, etc.)
well wouldn't it be kind of douchy of Ra to not mention that bipedal means dino? also, coexistence implies non-dino bipedal.
I think their grasp on language and how Don communicated was very unique, and sometimes the subtleties implied in the way Don communicated. Whether they didn't make such clarifications out of innocent misunderstanding, or due to the Law of Confusion, or to "be kind of douchy", who knows. There are other points in the material where Ra, if they perceived the heart of Don's words, could have made clarifications to what might be misunderstood, but instead remained true to the literal words. There were other points where they did make those subtle clarifications. It's hard to say one way or the other.
And I do think that Don's question implies non-dinosaur bipedal, my question is whether or not Ra picked up on, and also intended, that implication. It's possible, but I wouldn't say that for sure.
RE: dinos and bipeds - Parsons - 07-15-2015
I think Ra was able to read the intent behind Don's thoughts. But I agree with Austin, if it was important to preserve free will, they may not correct Don or attempt to clarify for him. So in a nutshell, I think they could have been referring to bipedal animals or they could have been referring to bipedal humanoids and there's no way for us to tell for sure.
As an aside, I believe that Ra purposefully did not correct/clarify Don several times throughout the material to preserve his/our free will. Its the primary reason I wish there were some way to get more questions to them to at least clarify a few points.