Mistakes vs errors

[βαθμιαίος]

Several times, Ra said "there are no mistakes." And yet, they also acknowledged making errors in the transmissions through Carla and that the confederation had made errors and been mistaken in its efforts on earth.

So what's the difference? I'm thinking that maybe when they said "there are no mistakes" they meant that it's impossible to separate oneself from the creator; that all is experience that helps the creator learn about itself, while they considered errors to be minor and technical, glitches basically.

What do you think?

[Patrick]

...
What do you think?

Well, I agree.

In the big scheme of things, there are no mistakes. But for the small Self there certainly seems to be.

[BrownEye]

Error
• An act, assertion, or belief that unintentionally deviates from what is correct, right, or true.
• The condition of having incorrect or false knowledge.

Mistake
•An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness.
• A misconception or misunderstanding.


Slight differences.

[BrownEye]

Error uses correct/incorrect. Ra has mentioned there is correct and incorrect actions and reactions.

---

Correct/incorrect seems more like "aligned" or not. I can see how it is not the same as mistake.

[Shin'Ar]

Several times, Ra said "there are no mistakes." And yet, they also acknowledged making errors in the transmissions through Carla and that the confederation had made errors and been mistaken in its efforts on earth.

So what's the difference? I'm thinking that maybe when they said "there are no mistakes" they meant that it's impossible to separate oneself from the creator; that all is experience that helps the creator learn about itself, while they considered errors to be minor and technical, glitches basically.

What do you think?

A mistake is just something you did that you shouldn't have.

All is experience.

[zenmaster]

Several times, Ra said "there are no mistakes." And yet, they also acknowledged making errors in the transmissions through Carla and that the confederation had made errors and been mistaken in its efforts on earth.

So what's the difference? I'm thinking that maybe when they said "there are no mistakes" they meant that it's impossible to separate oneself from the creator; that all is experience that helps the creator learn about itself, while they considered errors to be minor and technical, glitches basically.

What do you think?

They also say understanding is not of this density, yet at the same time use the term understand when referring to some concept which must be grasped in order to appreciate a certain distortion. They even say "must understand".

They also say "Could your planet polarize towards harmony in one fine, strong moment of inspiration? Yes, my friends. It is not probable; but it is ever possible." They then say, unequivocally, that "The great majority of your peoples will repeat third density."

---

They also say that the term "understanding" is a misnomer, but there are only so many words from which they may choose to express concepts. Ergo, I wouldn't get too caught up in "mistake" vs "error".

[Patrick]

But this density is ending and that is why understanding is becoming possible. With 4d comes understanding.

[Bring4th_Austin]

They also say understanding is not of this density, yet at the same time use the term understand when referring to some concept which must be grasped in order to appreciate a certain distortion. They even say "must understand".

I understood this to be specifically about understanding the Law of One, since that was what Don's questions was.

---

But this density is ending and that is why understanding is becoming possible. With 4d comes understanding.

If this is true, the understanding would come after we were harvested, since it was stated we must realize we do not understand in order to be harvested.

[Patrick]

But this density is ending and that is why understanding is becoming possible. With 4d comes understanding.

If this is true, the understanding would come after we were harvested, since it was stated we must realize we do not understand in order to be harvested.

Ok but what about those who are currently dual activated 3d/4d ? This is what I had in mind.

[Bring4th_Austin]

But this density is ending and that is why understanding is becoming possible. With 4d comes understanding.

If this is true, the understanding would come after we were harvested, since it was stated we must realize we do not understand in order to be harvested.

Ok but what about those who are currently dual activated 3d/4d ? This is what I had in mind.

I dunno...do you think they have the capacity to "understand" the Law of One?

[Patrick]

But this density is ending and that is why understanding is becoming possible. With 4d comes understanding.

If this is true, the understanding would come after we were harvested, since it was stated we must realize we do not understand in order to be harvested.

Ok but what about those who are currently dual activated 3d/4d ? This is what I had in mind.

I dunno...do you think they have the capacity to "understand" the Law of One?

I do yes. Not with knowledge and they could not explain what they understand, but yes I think they can understand the Law of One.

[βαθμιαίος]

They also say understanding is not of this density, yet at the same time use the term understand when referring to some concept which must be grasped in order to appreciate a certain distortion. They even say "must understand".

---

They also say that the term "understanding" is a misnomer, but there are only so many words from which they may choose to express concepts.

Yeah, many times they added the disclaimer when they used the word "understanding."

My sense of why understanding is not of this density is that it relates to this:

93.20 ...All that you perceive seems to be consciously perceived. This is not the correct supposition. All that you perceive is perceived as catalyst unconsciously. By the, shall we say, time that the mind begins its appreciation of catalyst, that catalyst has been filtered through the veil and in some cases much is veiled in the most apparently clear perception.

They also say "Could your planet polarize towards harmony in one fine, strong moment of inspiration? Yes, my friends. It is not probable; but it is ever possible." They then say, unequivocally, that "The great majority of your peoples will repeat third density."

Those two statements are not necessarily contradictory. The great majority of our peoples could polarize significantly towards harmony in one fine, strong moment, just not far enough to be harvested to fourth density.

Ergo, I wouldn't get too caught up in "mistake" vs "error".

Just curious about the world view behind the statement that there are no mistakes. My best guess is still that they were thinking of a mistake as something which would separate you from the Creator, which it's not possible to do in my understanding of their understanding (if you will pardon the misnomer).

[zenmaster]

Just curious about the world view behind the statement that there are no mistakes.

I think they just mean that ultimately, there are no mistakes and that the usual intent behind the idea of a mistake is there was something wrong which itself may be contributing to an unnecessary blockage. It's just part of the acceptance and identity problem we tend to have here. (and also why there is so much confusion about "ego" or "I-ness".)

[Ens Entium]

Ergo, I wouldn't get too caught up in "mistake" vs "error".

Just curious about the world view behind the statement that there are no mistakes. My best guess is still that they were thinking of a mistake as something which would separate you from the Creator, which it's not possible to do in my understanding of their understanding (if you will pardon the misnomer).

I think that the world view informing the 'no mistakes' statement is one that sees our thoughts and actions as, to some degree, experiments with confusion. Recall Ra's comment in session 94 that goes "your question is certainly interesting and your confusion hopefully productive".

[Confused]

Several times, Ra said "there are no mistakes." And yet, they also acknowledged making errors in the transmissions through Carla and that the confederation had made errors and been mistaken in its efforts on earth.

So what's the difference? I'm thinking that maybe when they said "there are no mistakes" they meant that it's impossible to separate oneself from the creator; that all is experience that helps the creator learn about itself, while they considered errors to be minor and technical, glitches basically.

What do you think?

βαθμιαίος, something tells me that you are not any simple interpreter of the LOO material. Your words, though couched as a question, seem to hide behind them, great and unmistakeable internal realizations and learning, which you wish to place as seeds under the context of the highest form of respect for human freewill

I think connected with your question, is another important quote of Ra, which probably adds insight --

69.17 Questioner: This is a point that I find quite confusing to me.

It is the function of the free will of the positively oriented entity to move into the negatively polarized time/space. However, it is also a function of his lack of understanding of what he is doing. I am sure that if the entity had full understanding of what he was doing he would not do it. It is a function of his negatively polarized other-self creating a situation where he is lured to that configuration. What is the principle with respect to the first distortion that allows this to occur since we have two portions of the Creator, each of equal value or of equal potential, but oppositely polarized and we have this situation resulting. Could you tell me the philosophical principle behind this particular act?

Ra: I am Ra. There are two important points in this regard. Firstly, we may note the situation wherein an entity gets a road-map which is poorly marked and in fact is quite incorrect. The entity sets out to its destination. It wishes only to reach the point of destination but, becoming confused by the faulty authority and not knowing the territory through which it drives, it becomes hopelessly lost.

Free will does not mean that there will be no circumstances when calculations will be awry. This is so in all aspects of the life experience. Although there are no mistakes, there are surprises.

Secondly, that which we and you do in workings such as this carries a magical charge, if you would use this much misunderstood term, perhaps we may say a metaphysical power. Those who do work of power are available for communication to and from entities of roughly similar power. It is fortunate that the Orion entity does not have the native power of this group. However, it is quite disciplined whereas this group lacks the finesse equivalent to its power. Each is working in consciousness but the group has not begun a work as a group. The individual work is helpful for the group is mutually an aid, one to another.

[Steppingfeet]

Several times, Ra said "there are no mistakes." And yet, they also acknowledged making errors in the transmissions through Carla and that the confederation had made errors and been mistaken in its efforts on earth.

So what's the difference? I'm thinking that maybe when they said "there are no mistakes" they meant that it's impossible to separate oneself from the creator; that all is experience that helps the creator learn about itself, while they considered errors to be minor and technical, glitches basically.

What do you think?

That's a really fruitful question to ponder.

Thinking about it briefly, I would say that by "there are no mistakes", Ra *may* intend to remove the sense of wrongness associated with those actions the seeker perceives to be mistakes. With that sense of wrongness comes a fear of some gross, perhaps irreversible deviation that has distanced oneself even further from the Creator, or the truth, or the light, etc. As you said, perhaps "mistake" is intended in the sense of becoming separate.

In truth, no matter what we do or don't do, no matter what decision we make, no matter how we stumble or how we spin our illusions and deepen our confusion, we are and always will be One. We, as Ra said, "amuse" ourselves by distorting our experience in various ways, but regardless of how we choose our form of play, who we really are remains unchanged, undiminished, and un-enhanced.

Thus, no matter how enlightened or unenlightened our choices, or whether we honor or deny the Law of One, we cannot make a mistake. We are dancing thoughts that rise and fall, come and go, move in harmony or disharmony, realize themselves or remain blind to themselves, but that from which the thoughts arise is, according to reports of both mystics and Ra, unchanging. The same.

However Ra uses "errors" and "mistakes" in a second, more limited sense. I think we can certainly make an error when attempting to meet a limited, time-or-space-bound goal.

Say we are intending to drive to Canada from Kansas, but we head south instead. We've made a mistake in terms of reaching our limited goal. Say we want to buy an orange from the grocery store but instead pick up a grapefruit. We have erred in terms of our limited goal. Or say we incarnated on Venus to polarize positively but, through our own confusion and the exercise of our free will, switch polarities and commit to polarizing negatively. We have definitely, boneheadedly made a mistake in terms of not keeping with our original intention and desire.

But in the end, like you said, there is nothing we can do to separate. We can certainly enhance and reinforce the *illusion* of separation, making it as seemingly real as can be, and drawing power and purpose therein, but whether we go up or down, left or right, or sit there and stare, absolute truth remains absolute. And we are, in the end, absolute.

That's my take! So good to catch up on some reading and crank out a post! I've been preoccupied with limited amounts of the illusion of time. GLB

[Shin'Ar]

I look at it very simply without all of the lightbearer/newage contexts.

If you and I were the last two people on the planet, regardless of which one was god, which one thought they were god, or even if both actually were god, OR IF I WAS GOD, should I choose to kill you for my own selfish reasons, THAT would be a great mistake.

To have the opportunity to share existence with another soul, even if you were God, and to cast away that opportunity out of greed, to spend the rest of eternity alone and not able to share your further experiences with any other form of intelligence, cannot be defined in any other way than a grand mistake of judgement.