David Wilcock

[3D Sunset]

When I say there is a generation gap I don't mean that young people are smarter or that the world is going to be better.

And I don't mean that old people are stupid.

I mean that there is a perspective gap. In my early posts in this thread I was trying to explain my perspective, and Quantum responsed in a way that seemed to indicate he thought it was insulting for me to imply that "old people" would have a different perspective on things.

I give the opinions of old people MORE credit, not less. I don't discount old people whatsoever. I literally do give them more credit because I figure they should have the experience to make better decisions on fuzzy issues.

The reason I brought up the issue of age is because I believed that there was misunderstanding due to perspective. For instance I think Quantum thinks that people take David Wilcock more seriously than they do. David himself has said that most of his fans are under 25 years old.

Forgive me then, for falling victim to projecting upon your use of the phrase "generation gap" the same feelings and intent that most of my generation felt when aiming that phrase at our preceeding generation.

For what it's worth though, I would suggest that age is totally irrelevant. This life's experiences have little bearing on what will be happening in the coming years. We need to seek the best resource available for the task at hand independent of incarnational age. What is more important are the soul experiences that we are all bringing to the party. And those are experiences that we all have in abundance.

All the best,

3D Sunset

[Monica]

Once attracted to his many wavelengths of light, the awakening soul is offered a smorgasbord of spiritual delicacies. A veritable banquet for the soul. Some of it is delectable to everyone, little of it is of interest to all.

I love your analogy!

As to his public persona, I find it entertaining, and perhaps necessary (even adding to his cachet of "lures", that of rock star and movie writer/producer), but also potentially dangerous to him and his work. It is certainly easy for the ego to take over and allow one to be totally misdirected and taken off path, and thus publicly discredited. This is certainly the preferred modus operandi of the opposing forces, and one to which I hope David is superior. I fear, however, that he has forgotten that fame and success are by far the more seductive and damaging of “negative greetings” than is any amount of criticism and disagreement that he may have with the guests he has invited to his banquet.

Profound!

This reminds me of the last scene in The Devil's Advocate, which I won't mention since I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen it...but those who have seen it will likely get the illustration.

[Quantum]

...The problem I am having at this point is that I cannot verify the facts.
... claims need to be backed up or we fall back to the level of blindly following popular opinions.

Your point is well taken and has been made in several posts, to which after deliberation I have already conceded in my previous message? I went so far as to state that were the tables turned I would request the same. Once again, you will have your proof.

I suggest we all act scholarly and reject gut feelings and other logical fallacies.

The intent as repeatedly suggested to the point of exasperation is that we only "academically" investigate certain assertions made, this as 3D rightly names "by a public figure of the LOO." This is a study of the LOO. A study infers we only act scholarly verses anything to the contrary?

If this turns into a lynch mob I'm going to leave the discussion and ask moderators on their own judgment to close it.

Lynch mob? I hope this is an over-reactive consideration/assumption? If it is "only" an academic inquiry and discussion, based on "authoritative scholarly claims" made, this by "a public figure of the LOO", and we see these assertions to be less than so, why would this turn into or be considered a lynch mob verses a study or discussion? You will forgive me for inferring that it seems somewhat as though in your repeated request for proof that there now seems a responsibility on your part that you will indeed receive it? One can not be responsible for others reactions, particularly in light of the fact that you have requested that all remain academic.

As far as I'm concerned I don't much care about the man's likability. So I'd suggest we treat that as a separate category.

Let us be clear. The invitation has repeatedly been made from the onset that we speak only in the academic, not the personal, and certainly not to personalities? This has been memorialized many times, and exasperatingly restated, over and over, as it is here again. It was rejected once by suggesting we speak to assertions only as though hypothetical as a thought exercise, twice as to a silly non-person named Ishkabibel, and three times rejected as an offer as to "what if Quantum (myself) made these assertions", with the offer only in all cases that we speak strictly to how these assertions stack up in light of the LOO as having been made by someone that claims authority. This being said, where has anyone's likability ever entered in, or been challenged? Lets us engage in study to material only. Period. It was for this very concern that I in fact attempted to keep it to a thought exercise only for academic discussion only. Proof has been requested repeatedly however by more than just yourself, and here again by yourself as seen above.

I have pondered the David Wilcock question for some time and I’d like to share my thoughts, especially in light of Quantum’s query, because it seems to have value in the abstract (i.e., independent of the specific person) as well as in the corporeal.

Thank you for acknowledging with an the intellectual response 3D, i.e. seeing the value in the abstract independent of a specific person. I wish I would have phrased it in these words.

So, given the statement: “If a person claims to be performing their life's work from within the Law of One, but on occasion acts or makes claims in a way that is contrary to the Law of One then, especially given that the person is a public figure, are they indeed providing a valuable service, worthy of our time and attention?”
...It seems to me that the answer is yes, at least to some degree.

I also agreed to your question posed in this context. Yes, he has value.

...we can, and do, constantly reassess our “taste” for that person’s spiritual cuisine, as it were. And just as with any cuisine, we will, over time, experience varying appetites for the given variety. This is particularly true for me, of David Wilcock’s fare. I find his cuisine too “peppered”, if you will, with transitory statements and speculation which is distasteful to me, personally, right now.

We agree

I do see that he serves a significant purpose in regards the Law of One, however, in much the same way that a trawling net serves to catch fish. He is like a fairly large, public scoop, if you will, that attracts awakening souls and helps them find their place in this world. As such a lure, he has several aspects that may attract different interests. His purported relationship to Edgar Cayce being one, his purported association with whistleblowers trying to expose the various conspiracies that have occurred and continue, his scientific slant and attempts to bridge the gap between eastern and western scientific philosophies, his practice of channeling and involvement in many new age movements, and not least, his embracing of the Law of One as a foundational philosophy. I propose that one could not invision a more effective, multifaceted, “lure” for seekers of “truth” and awakening souls than our dear David Wilcock.

I agree in theory as much as perhaps disagree in practice. One could do it far more elegantly and efficiently and perhaps with a great deal more affect as much as effect by dispensing with claims of authority or to a scholarly mantle while in fact misinterpreting the very material one purports to represent as an authority. Its not kosher, if you'll allow the pun to your gastronomic analogy. It must be emphasized however that when one "trawls" with a large "scoop" as you say, one indeed catches everything, inferring as you suggest not just the gastronomic delights only. I agree. Even in this however, it has not been so much of a point as to if one trawls, as much as when a shrimp is called a bass, and moreover that the two swim in different waters. It is the assertions in the net that are being questioned, not if there is a net, or that there is a catch, or that a service is being provided.

Does he transgress and does he misinterpret the Law of One, on occasion, probably unconsciously, in ways that are manipulative and self-serving? I do believe so. But so what?

But this is the whole of the purpose for engaging in the discussion? "But so what kills" perhaps everything and anything in its entirety on anything if not everything.

I believe that in our culture, we try to hold public figures to too high a standard.

I respectfully disagree. In fact I couldn't disagree more. If a person actively seeks public attention, and actively seeks the public spotlight, and actively seeks a position, or a mantle, he must all times be far more responsible and far more accountable as that public figure, and to a far higher standard than is my next door neighbor Bubba requested to be, especially if to be taken seriously in arenas such as academia and/or public office. Many parents and social advocates would even go so far as to say this includes showbiz. If your position of "so what" is so, then "so what" to public office as a public figure, "so what" to science as regards what a scientist may have "speculated" or argued for as regards swine flu and the inoculations you don't really need that he said you did, and "so what" to the economists who may cause a run on banks or allow a paltry 700 billion dollars to go missing, or "so what" as to what any academic may claim as an interpretation to a material, particularly and especially if he holds himself out as an authority on the material. It was an over statement I know, and I get your point, but "so what" is the antithesis of and to everything, and is the polar opposite of passion, life, growth, study, and concern, whether it is to social conscience, or to political, environmental, or spiritual pursuits. "So what" is in fact as lethargic as it is dangerous for being so.

As to his public persona, I find it entertaining, and perhaps necessary (even adding to his cachet of "lures", that of rock star and movie writer/producer), but also potentially dangerous to him and his work. It is certainly easy for the ego to take over and allow one to be totally misdirected and taken off path, and thus publicly discredited. This is certainly the preferred modus operandi of the opposing forces, and one which I hope to which David is superior. I fear, however, that he has forgotten that fame and success are by far the more seductive and damaging of “negative greetings” than is any amount of criticism and disagreement that he may have with the guests he has invited to his banquet.

Extremely well spoken dear friend. Your gastronomic analogy was as poetic, as it was piercing. It even made me hungry for more.

I will close with two questions:
1. It is all good and well that one cast a net for a banquet for the public, all for catching the many things of the ocean. But would it not be better to also be discerning, particularly if one claims one is a gourmet, and place only the fruits of the bounty on the table verses also not just so much pepper on the food, but also "all the things of the ocean" caught in the net without it being separated, filtered, or thrown back before placing it on the table? If one claims to be a gourmet, we may expect this, if not demand it.
2. I have brought this point up before but have yet to hear a response as regards what our responsibility is to the LOO as a community? Perhaps the answer is that "it is a rhetorical question"? Perhaps the answer is "we're just students, and there is no community, and that the LOO is a selfish pleasure for our own intellectual curiosity and entertainment only"? Or perhaps the answer is "I never thought about it in that way?" And continuing..."Maybe we all have a responsibility to keep the information on track?" Maybe it matters very much for those who have yet to encounter it, even if we as students understand it. Maybe we have a responsibility to at least be cognizant of where the misrepresentations are, even if from the very public figure that is casting the net sprinkled with mis-interpretations to the uninitiated? It is all well and good that we speak to "so what" within our very small community of students within the LOO. We as students have presumably read the LOO. We may say it is our responsibility to be familiar and to know better certain knowledge as regards the LOO, and as such given we know whats what we needn't hold a public figure in either such high regard, or to such high scrutiny. But what about those that are the totally uninitiated? And what about the newbies here asking questions as regards "interpretations" they may have read without even expressing they have read them, allowing us to assume they've read the material instead? Sure the easy and flip answer is to tell them to get a life and take responsibility as spiritual seekers (like us), and that until they do (like us) they'll always be less than harvestable (like us), and blah-blah-blah spiritual authority/superiority. But....we could say something else. We could as a community discuss these certain interpretations, not just for their benefit, but for our our own as well. Are we only interested in narcissistically projecting our own?

Say it ain't so.

To extend the point, what if such meticulous notes and efforts had not been made by Carla, Jim, Don, and the entire L/L group to preserve and precisely get the information right. What if only slight misstatements or notes had slipped in here and there, innocuous, innocent, sloppy, or otherwise. Might this have changed profoundly the entire context of the LOO, even if only slightly? Aren't we all as true students honor-bound and obligated to "recuse" ourselves as authority, or as scholars, as if though one holds more knowledge than another on something one can not hold more on than the other (especially when interpreting). Aren't we all but simple students and pilgrims learning? As such, are we not also honor bound to protect the public from our own misinterpretations as much as we are from those claiming any certain authority or scholarly knowledge as if "more than" when in fact sometimes perhaps more off than most for it?

If it is our honor to be students of this wonderful material, and it may be our self imposed obligation to be honor bound to discuss and learn and challenge and grow together, then we're in it together. This would in effect perhaps be the beginning of a Social Memory Complex in 3D, with all of it's inherent flaws and shortcomings expressed in 3D. But it is a start? If we can not even do so as an academic exercise to the information, then where do we begin? So as to the "so what", it matters very much in this light. Perhaps we've stepped into this responsibility for the benefit of the unintiated by simply picking the book up?

L/L and Peace...and a "Very Happy Mothers Day" to all of you wonderful mothers out there.

Q

[Ali Quadir]

Dear Q,

I was only restating what was already said, you said you sent people messages, you also invited some to join in the conversation. I do not know which people or what their motivations are. So I just made my point of view clear from the start. Let me put it this way, any negative expectations or suspicions on my side are not the result of you, I know you too briefly for that.

Therefore they must be the result of my own ambiguity, my own experiences in other places. Which obviously they are. Please don't take me personal. And please forgive my suspicious nature. Anything I say reflects on me first and foremost.

I will await the actual references.

[Monica]

So basically you guys don't consider yourself "old". Fair enough. I guess to me anyone who is twice my age is considered old, but to you guys 80 year olds are old and you guys are not.

I remember back in the 60s (before you were born, ha!) the slogan was "Don't ever trust anyone over 30." For that matter, I remember being in junior high and thinking the high school students were old!

Funny how the definition of 'old' keeps getting pushed back the older you get! When you're 30, 50 seems old, but when you're 50, 70 seems old...

I really do think there is a generation gap based on age. I think growing up on the internet has had a huge affect on the way people think. Imagine how your life would be different if at 4 years old you had been surfing the net.. now realize there is an entire generation of people growing up who are doing exactly that. It's a new world.

I do understand your point, and I would say the same is true of rock music. I'm turning 49 next week, but still think of people as 'cool' and young at heart as long as they still listen to rock music!

For our generation, it was the music that was the dividing line between generations. So, in a sense, the internet and video games are to your generation as the music scene was to ours.

Nevertheless, it was our generation, starting with the hippie movement in the 60s, that sort of got the ball rolling as far as questioning authority and becoming open-minded, independent thinkers, at least on a wide scale. But there were surely pioneers (Wanderers) way before that. So I don't think it can really be defined by generation so much as it is by mindset. There are probably 80-year-olds with open minds who, in a sense, are just as young in terms of their fresh way of thinking. Whereas, some young people are still locked into negative, closed-minded thinking.

I realize that I'm diverting into another topic here...and you were referring to lifestyle (ie. internet) whereas I am going off into another direction (open-mindedness and fresh attitudes) entirely.

I do think the generational issue is a valid point, especially in light of the assertion that the majority of DW's fans (fans?) are under 25. I think that is very telling and quite an interesting bit of trivia that I was not aware of.

[3D Sunset]

I respectfully disagree. In fact I couldn't disagree more. If a person actively seeks public attention, and actively seeks the public spotlight, and actively seeks a position, or a mantle, he must all times be far more responsible and far more accountable as that public figure, and to a far higher standard than is my next door neighbor Bubba requested to be, especially if to be taken seriously in arenas such as academia and/or public office. Many parents and social advocates would even go so far as to say this includes showbiz. If your position of "so what" is so, then "so what" to public office as a public figure, "so what" to science as regards what a scientist may have "speculated" or argued for as regards swine flu and the inoculations you don't really need that he said you did, and "so what" to the economists who may cause a run on banks or allow a paltry 700 billion dollars to go missing, or "so what" as to what any academic may claim as an interpretation to a material, particularly and especially if he holds himself out as an authority on the material. It was an over statement I know, and I get your point, but "so what" is the antithesis of and to everything, and is the polar opposite of passion, life, growth, study, and concern, whether it is to social conscience, or to political, environmental, or spiritual pursuits. "So what" is in fact as lethargic as it is dangerous for being so.

Fair enough, perhaps I overstated the point based upon my conviction that David's, as well as my, transgressions are relatively minor (the cosmic equivalent of parking tickets as opposed to mass murder, if you will). That said, I must now join the camp of those that call upon you to "show me the details" and I will wholeheartedly participate in the discussion. In the mean time, I am perfectly happy to forgive David the transgressions I have seen, because, to me at least, they are equivalent to missing a few notes, or on occasion rearranging a measure, in an overall harmonious interpretation of one of my favorite symphonies.

To extend the point, what if such meticulous notes and efforts had not been made by Carla, Jim, Don, and the entire L/L group to preserve and precisely get the information right. What if only slight misstatements or notes had slipped in here and there, innocuous, innocent, sloppy, or otherwise. Might this have changed profoundly the entire context of the LOO, even if only slightly? Aren't we all as true students honor-bound and obligated to "recuse" ourselves as authority, or as scholars, as if though one holds more knowledge than another on something one can not hold more on than the other (especially when interpreting). Aren't we all but simple students and pilgrims learning? As such, are we not also honor bound to protect the public from our own misinterpretations as much as we are from those claiming any certain authority or scholarly knowledge as if "more than" when in fact sometimes perhaps more off than most for it?

I am absolutely convinced that mistakes did slip by in spite of the best efforts of the trio plus Ra. But, following my musical analogy, here again I think there is not sufficient distortion of the original score to affect in any significant way the underlying musical theme, plot or overall experience of the symphony. So no, I do not think that it would have (or did) "change the entire context profoundly".

The concern I have about picking apart another's interpretation of the Law of One, is that I believe that each of us sees in the works, precisely what our mind/body/spirit complex needs at the time we are considering it, and I am loath to risk impinging upon another's free will. By extension, I think that people see in an interpretation of TLOO, what they need at the time they read it. The story changes if someone asks for our opinion about a passage or an interpretation thereof (and there are many such ambiguous passages that I would love to discuss). But to hold ourselves up as the "policemen", if you will, for the Law of One seems both presumptuous and dangerous.

Still, given his public presence, as I said earlier, I would be willing to entertain a scholarly consideration of any alleged misstatements of David's that anyone would care to bring forward. I might even be persuaded to point out a few that I have noted over the years, some of which, for example, significantly undermine (at least in my opinion) David's belief in the "instantaneous versus the gradual" migration into 4D. But, for what it's worth, I do not see the misinterpretations of the Law of One that I feel exist in that treatise as being particularly important regarding the TLOO, because I feel that any such interpretation aimed at answering transitory questions are inherently error prone and will always be wrong.

Thank you for your continued waving of the banner of truth, dear Q. I do support you in this endeavor, in spite of how I may sound to be somewhat at odds with you.

As always, your humble servant,

3D Sunset

[Quantum]

Fair enough, perhaps I overstated the point based upon my conviction that David's, as well as my, transgressions are relatively minor (the cosmic equivalent of parking tickets as opposed to mass murder, if you will).

Not fair. Once again overstated. We're not comparing mass murder to an academic analysis of certain transgressions in assertions made as being parking tickets as a base for which is the graver of the two in comparison to mass murder? I agree, parking tickets are less of an infraction than is mass murder. This trivializes and minimizes any discussion to nothingness. Lets just talk to and about academic analysis.

...Thank you for your continued waving of the banner of truth, dear Q. I do support you in this endeavor, in spite of how I may sound to be somewhat at odds with you.

Quite all right 3D. And thank you for the openness of mind in the support for the search of truth through integrity and analysis, as well as what I suspect is your intellectual curiosity for almost any discussion. I don't consider you at odds at all in fact dear friend. Never have. Your clearly sharp enough and kind enough to be at odds respectfully. I quite like hearing from you as a result. I therefore humbly encourage you, as well as all, to remain respectful and at intellectual odds, as this keeps all of us fit, if not corrected. It would be a boring forum otherwise. I'll take this moment as a cue not so much as to address you, but more for the wider audience when I say for the purposes of this conversation especially, let us engage in an absolutely sterile, clean, academic analysis only. We need to be careful, respectful, detached, and unemotional. Absolutely unemotional. We may be entering into highly charged waters. We are respectfully beginning a dialogue as regards certain assertions, verses a man. But it must be recognized we are nonetheless speaking about a man that made them. It will be extremely sensitive at best, and emotional for some at worst. Although in the past I may have engaged in lightheartedness and humor here and there, peppered throughout some of my posts, I will not here. Sterile analysis only please.

I was going to go straight for some of the information Ali Quadir and Yossarian asked. But I think it best to go more gently initially as a means of getting our feet wet first and as a gentle means of gauging the openness, as much as for opening up an academic analysis and dialogue first. Excerpts and quotes are total fair game, regardless of date or source, as long as it can be established these are his words.

We begin with an extremely recent post:

http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option...&Itemid=70
Go to: "What Actually Happens in 2012" - scroll 3/4 the way down

"If you do graduate, you will most likely move into "fourth-density space/time" and stay with the Earth in this totally new plane of existence that is now about to be born. If you do not graduate, you live out the rest of your life in Earth’s third-density time/space — what most people call the ‘astral plane’ — and your next life will be on another third-density planet, custom-built for everyone on Earth who will still need it after the end of Earth’s third-density cycle.

Only recently have we discovered that apparently a small number of people — most likely those involved in secret government programs and leaning towards the negative path — do stay in "third-density space/time" — i.e. the physical Earth as it exists now — after 2012. Some of them are in underground bases and others stay on the surface of the Earth.
Some of these people who remain in third-density space/time also evolve into fourth-density, but as far as we can tell they graduate into the negative path".

As a representative spokesperson and a public figure for the LOO, and one that repeatedly claims he is a scholar of the LOO and therefore is presumably an authority on the LOO, and one that presumably speaks to "far more of the unintiated public"as regards the LOO "than to students" of the LOO, this reads more like a script from the X-Files than from the LOO? It is further being promulgated to the unitiated from where they draw their source, and unfortunately as a consequence therefore interpreted fairly so by the general public to be part and parcel of the LOO as a result. This misrepresents the LOO. Where, anywhere, in the LOO is this information even so much as inferred or hinted at in the LOO? How did Wilcock only recently discover this information which Carla or other channels presumably have not? Certainly he did not recently "discover" this from the LOO? Perhaps Ra told him in a channeled session? Who else could have? Who else would know this information? Perhaps another channel he has never told us about that he defers to? If it was Ra, then it's assuredly not the same Ra, nor even the same Ra of the same social memory complex (SMC), as we factually know the Ra SMC would never speak to such transient information. It is neither scholarly, nor is it academic, nor is it source, nor as a consequence may it be viewed as from Ra. But where else may it have hailed from except from his Ra? It begs the question then, who then is his Ra? If it did not hail from his Ra, then it hailed from himself? It begs the same question: Who then is Wilcock, what is his source, how did he discover this new information or this new interpretation from the LOO?

Clearly it came nowhere from the LOO. As consequence it may be inferred that it bends the LOO rather profoundly as either an interpretation, or as an addendum. If it is an interpretation, how may it be considered scholarly? If it is an addendum, how may an addendum be made to a text whether it be the LOO or the Dead Sea Scrolls? Likewise, how is this scholarly?

To the last statement "Some of these people who remain in third-density space/time also evolve into fourth-density, but as far as we can tell they graduate into the negative path". I am baffled. What other respectful or academic response would be more appropriate than the more honest response to it reading more like the X-Files than the LOO? This is a complete revision to everything he previously fought so hard to make a point of. It would now, according to his new revised theory, appear that Quo seemingly always had it kinda had right to begin with, this in spite of the rather than strong protestations of Wilcock against Quo and to the contrary in his "Gradualist verses Instantaneous" debates. Where is his position, if not all over the board? Wilcock has had yet again another change of mind it seems? Or is it Ra that keeps changing his / their mind, if not Wilcock's mind? Wilcock has had more than several changes of mind(s) as regards the LOO with specificity on more than several topics when challenged, as shall be demonstrated in later posts. Let us remain with this first however for several posts. It would seem that although Quo sorta got it right, they just didn't get it as right as Mr. Wilcock, in as much as now "only some of us" do get to in fact get to stay, but interestingly enough only if your STS (?), and moreover only if graduating into 4th negative?

This is a rather profoundly newly discovered interpretation, given that only very recently according to Mr. Wilcock, everyone, everyone, everyone in 3D, whether STO or STS, needs die at 2012 when the clock strikes twelve, this as the door instantaneously opens to 4D. Theses are Mr. Wilcock's words repeatedly. Has he now moved from an "Instantaneous Shift" position to a "Semi-Gradualist-Negative-Elitist's Only-STS" position? Moreover, to the STS in 3D, while 4D exists, do the mountains and underground caverns somehow filter out and /or block the 4D positivity coming in, but only for the STS and not for STO who may also burrow into the ground as well? Or is it that the 3D elite negative STS'ers somehow have devised certain filtered abilities within themselves that the STO'ers have not? Perhaps it is only that the STO'ers, presumably unable to graduate, are simply somehow assumed to be "privileged to die"? In other words, the earth turns 4D positive, but the STO 3D positive must die, but the 3D negative elite may live? Well...its confounding to say the least and reads like a revised "Semi-Gradualist-Negative-Elitist's only-STS" position but presumably only if one is a "Semi-Gradualist-Negative-Elitist Only-STS'er" verses the common STS garden variety Non-Elite STS'er? Presumably even if one were a really really bad STS'er, but not having achieved the social status and ranking of money and/or political position, that they are additionally segregated by their station in life, this by status or money, as part and parcel to Seniority of Vibration? In other words, if you have the cash or social position you may stay. Or is it that if one stays as an STS'er, that much like the Bible, one is doomed to stay to gnash his teeth after a reverse rapture of sorts that never was? I am baffled.

It would seem by this assertion that "Seniority of Vibration" alone isn't quite enough to cut it, but that with a bit of "jingle in the pocket" or "a social ranking and status" that the incoming frequencies will be cognizant enough to sort all this out and care about the difference? It is a wholly new "other than" Instantaneous Shift position he argued so strongly for previously, that he still holds to on a rather peculiar non-level playing field for STO, but curiously not for STS? I am baffled.

Pray tell, do they (the "Semi-Gradualist-Negative-Elitist's Only-STS" ) die, when they graduate to 4D negative, or do they merely just ascend from an almost 4th positive post 2012 that is a segregated 3D for Negative Elitists only while still in 3rd, that are going into this 4th negative other planet, which with certainly isn't here, as the here is 4th positive?

Is anyone stopping for even a moment just so much as to scratch their heads with me...even a little ... and saying "say what?"

Clearly Wilcock is invoking the LOO principles of study, this by speaking to 3rd and 4th density, and STS vs STO, and Positive verses Negative etc, all while seemingly bending the stuff he purports to represent.

This is me just beginning with some very disturbing questions. There are many more. These assertions are promulgated to the general public as though scholarly, and as though authority, and as though principles within the LOO. This is furthermore very recently channeled information, or interpretation that he claims was just recently discovered and as recently posted of just several months ago. We as students of the LOO are singularly the only ones capable of engaging in this discussion. No one else in the general public can, as they haven't read the information, and may very well never do so. As such, who else but us are able to question this academically, challenge it, or dispute it? Who else? Is the common man that is more interested in "the large net and trawling scoop" that 3D offered (correctly so), and as one who is more interested in the "Whistle Blowing, New World Order, Alien, Conspiratorial Information" listening to the radio or reading the posts of Mr. Wilcock who suggests, all in one breath, that ET technology brought down the Trade Towers while espousing the LOO at once, able to decipher this and distinguish this as LOO material when it is not, nor even closely supported by it?

Lets begin herewith, this as an appetizer, as it gets even more interesting as shall be see in later posts. Bear in mind once again that participation in this conversation should only be engaged in if at all times respectful to the man, as much as to one another, this by remaining only to the assertions and interpretations, and by pledging to remain on topic, i.e. said assertions. He nor we are topic. Only assertions are topic please.

LET US BE IN HONOR AND IN AGREEMENT TO THIS BEFORE BEGINNING: ASSERTIONS ONLY. STERILE, CLEAN, ACADEMIC, ANALYSIS ONLY. IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED THAT WE ARE SPEAKING WHOLLY AND SOLELY TO THE PRINCIPLES AND TO THE MATERIAL OF "THE Law of One" ONLY. THIS MEANS THAT ONLY "THE Law of One" MAY BE USED AS REFERENCE, AND THAT NO OTHER MATERIAL OR CHANNELED INFORMATION MAY BE INVOKED AS DEFENSE FOR A BASIS OF CONVERSATION, DISCUSSION, OR DEBATE EITHER IN SUPPORT OF THESE ASSERTIONS, OR AGAINST. THE PRINCIPLES OF "THE Law of One" HAVE BEEN INVOKED. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE THESE PRINCIPLES WERE NOWHERE EITHER SPOKEN TO OR FOUND BEFORE OR AFTER AS GIVEN BY Ra IN "THE Law of One" TEACHINGS. THEREFORE "THE Law of One' IS SINGULARLY OUR SOURCE WHEN REFERRING TO THESE PRINCIPLES AS MUCH AS TO THESE ASSERTIONS.

[Ali Quadir]

Dear Quantum,

You're stretching my understanding with your choice of phrasing things. So if I misunderstand somethings pardon me, just restate it simple, with words less is often better.

IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED THAT WE ARE SPEAKING WHOLLY AND SOLELY TO THE PRINCIPLES AND TO THE MATERIAL OF "THE Law of One" ONLY. THIS MEANS THAT ONLY "THE Law of One" MAY BE USED AS REFERENCE, AND THAT NO OTHER MATERIAL OR CHANNELED INFORMATION MAY BE INVOKED AS DEFENSE FOR A BASIS OF CONVERSATION, DISCUSSION, OR DEBATE EITHER IN SUPPORT OF THESE ASSERTIONS, OR AGAINST. THE PRINCIPLES OF "THE Law of One" HAVE BEEN INVOKED.

I decline. I won't stick to the Law of One. That suggestion is unfair. If David claims to cite ONLY from the Law of One then you have a point however he no where does that. Telling us that we can judge ALL his comments purely from the Law of One knowing that he has multiple sources is in effect sabotaging the process and judging him unfairly.

Is this the issue? Are you assuming he is ONLY a scholar of the Law of One? He can be nothing else? And must keep his eyes and ears closed to the rest of life and may only cite from the book? If you're just saying that not all his sources are Law of One then you're correct. But please explain why this is relevant on figuring if the man is a scholar or a fraud.

The way I see it you're quoting him stating from a non Law of One source, then claim that this is not a Law of One source, and therefore his understanding of the Law of One is flawed...

This line of reasoning of course doesn't hold.

So I see two directions, either you try to make clear to me why we should judge Wilcocks (statements that are not sourced in Law of One) ONLY from the Law of One or I must reject this restriction as unfair and without basis in reasoning.

Also you're misrepresenting the quote you're giving.... Let me cite it completely.

"This is a quite spontaneous event when it happens, and will have an effect of popping us into time/space similar to the Bermuda Triangle and / or traveling through a ‘stargate.’ The process is not at all painful — it is like the energetic equivalent of a sudden dive into a pool of cold water. It is apparently the most spiritually ecstatic moment we will have ever experienced, and ancient mystics eagerly looked forward to it many thousands of years ago.

If you do graduate, you will most likely move into "fourth-density space/time" and stay with the Earth in this totally new plane of existence that is now about to be born.

If you do not graduate, you live out the rest of your life in Earth’s third-density time/space — what most people call the ‘astral plane’ — and your next life will be on another third-density planet, custom-built for everyone on Earth who will still need it after the end of Earth’s third-density cycle.

Only recently have we discovered that apparently a small number of people — most likely those involved in secret government programs and leaning towards the negative path — do stay in "third-density space/time" — i.e. the physical Earth as it exists now — after 2012. Some of them are in underground bases and others stay on the surface of the Earth.

Some of these people who remain in third-density space/time also evolve into fourth-density, but as far as we can tell they graduate into the negative path.

Witnesses who have interacted with these "future human extraterrestrials" — including Dan Burisch in private conversations I have had with him — describe them as being threatening and fear-invoking, which is vastly different from how the Law of One series says it feels to connect with a fourth-density positive being."

So David mentions another as his source one you declined to mention. Instead you pretend he claims he gets this from the Law of One. Then state that the Law of One does not say this.

David only states here that the Law of One describes the contact with 4d entities as vastly different from the contact with the current batch of 4d humans visiting earth. And ascribes this to polarity.

You kind of mention the other source, but jokingly call it x-files. You consider them irrelevant and worthy of ridicule. The fact that you consider these other sources ridiculous is possibly from ignorance, it certainly is not from fact established in our conversation. The fact that you can joke about it does not make it wrong. Sadly as you already forbade us to talk about these other sources that's basically it for the discussion isn't it?

Let me put it this way, I disagree with your line of reasoning.

You say he claims something he does not actually claim, (Quoting from the Law of One, he's not doing that, he's not even referring to it except in one final case that you ignored) and then you sort of misrepresent what he actually claims. Sort of, because I can't confidently figure out what it is you're trying to say he says. However it somehow includes the "fact" that David says everyone will die in 2012.

He does not say this. Certainly not in the quotes you give, and as far as I can tell, never ever does he state this. He says "This is a quite spontaneous event when it happens, and will have an effect of popping us into time/space similar to the Bermuda Triangle and / or traveling through a ‘stargate.’ The process is not at all painful — it is like the energetic equivalent of a sudden dive into a pool of cold water. It is apparently the most spiritually ecstatic moment we will have ever experienced, and ancient mystics eagerly looked forward to it many thousands of years ago."

To me this does not sound much like death. And it certainly is not a quote from the Law of One... If you ask me it sounds like harvest and this a valid Law of One principle.

[Phoenix]

I used to go on a forum called astral society. Where the moderators used to lock threads that debated (argued) far longer than was ever going to communicate a point.

I don't want to get involved in this, but can I just say that those who foolishly try to change the opinion of one who is fixed in their views earns only fatigue and anger.

What is the fifth densities response to war?

[Quantum]

you said you sent people messages, you also invited some to join in the conversation.

To be correct: I never said I sent people messages. I said people have sent me messages, and that they may elect to participate and that I expect them to.

I won't stick to the Law of One. That suggestion is unfair.

THE PRINCIPLES OF "THE Law of One" HAVE BEEN INVOKED. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE THESE PRINCIPLES WERE NOWHERE EITHER SPOKEN TO OR FOUND BEFORE OR AFTER AS GIVEN BY Ra IN "THE Law of One" TEACHINGS. THEREFORE "THE Law of One' IS SINGULARLY OUR SOURCE WHEN REFERRING TO THESE PRINCIPLES AS MUCH AS TO THESE ASSERTIONS.
I don't know how much more clear I can be? If one is going to invoke the principles of the LOO, then one must invoke only what was taught. Otherwise one is blending, mixing, and creating addendums to the LOO by blending a little of this with a little of that, thus diluting the LOO. This seems self evident and all too clear. If it is your request that we do this, then I question not only your logic, but your purpose. This is exactly what I am arguing against, i.e. diluting the teachings as though to create a hodge-podge, and then call it scholarly?

Telling us that we can judge ALL his comments purely from the Law of One knowing that he has multiple sources is in effect sabotaging the process and judging him unfairly.

I find this to be a curious statement. I am under the impression that we have a tacit understanding that this forum is for the further study of the LOO, not other sources as primary?

The way I see it you're quoting him stating from a non Law of One source, then claim that this is not a Law of One source, and therefore his understanding of the Law of One is flawed...

Your English alludes me here a little, but if I am correct in your meaning, this is exactly what I am stating, in as much as he is indeed utilizing the LOO, but not as undiluted LOO. We in effect are reading "Wilcokian" by virtues of it being based on the LOO, but not purely from the LOO. This in effect equals something different, but it assuredly is not Ra, or their teachings, or the LOO. You are in effect making all my points for me Ali? Can you see this?

This line of reasoning of course doesn't hold.

Again, I think your making this easier for me than expected. He has stated repeatedly that he is a scholar of the LOO. That is the only claim that begs questioning. How then is the line of reasoning flawed? Can we not simply as students of the LOO stick simply to the LOO and assertions made regarding the LOO? This has been from the onset and outset the question posed, Nothing else.

So I see two directions, either you try to make clear to me why we should judge Wilcocks (statements that are not sourced in Law of One) ONLY from the Law of One or I must reject this restriction as unfair and without basis in reasoning.

Same answer. Forget everything else Wilcock speaks about as regards all non-LOO materials or references, other than if the LOO principles are either referenced or spoken to. He may be emphatically correct on all other matters, or may be at fault on all other matters. Let us simply as students of the LOO stick simply to the LOO and assertions made regarding the LOO? This has been from the onset and outset the question posed, Nothing else.

Also you're misrepresenting the quote you're giving.... Let me cite it completely...(and then you do as seen above, and end with...)...So David mentions another as his source one you declined to mention. Instead you pretend he claims he gets this from the Law of One. Then state that the Law of One does not say this.

I am not interested in what other scientists say as regards Wilcocks assertions. I am only interested in what Wilcock says in regards to the LOO. Period. The scientists assertions may or may not be true. This is not in question. I do not pretend to claim at all that he gets his info only from the LOO? What are you misreading? I emphatically suggest that he indeed blends much info into the LOO, which mixes, distorts, and blurs the LOO.

David only states here that the Law of One describes the contact with 4d entities as vastly different from the contact with the current batch of 4d humans visiting earth. And ascribes this to polarity.

Please re-read my post again. Also re-read what Wilcock asserts? He clearly states 3D STO dies, but that 3D STS elite survive? He uses STO/STS/Positive/Negative/3D/4D terminology which is clearly from the LOO singularly. He does not "only state" comments about contact? Read it again? He sates mush much more?

You kind of mention the other source, but jokingly call it x-files. You consider them irrelevant and worthy of ridicule. ... Sadly as you already forbade us to talk about these other sources that's basically it for the discussion isn't it?

Not at all dear Ali. There is a wealth of discussion to be had as regards the assertions made as relates to the LOO singularly. May we not simply do this without all the other dialogue as to his other sources? I am only interested in the LOO as regards bring4th or as regards Wilcock's assertions. There are many many many other forums and sites that discuss all the other topics mentioned in all of Wilcock's posts. Wilcock may be brilliant as regards these. He may not be. I don't know. I am singularly concerned only as regards the LOO and to his assertions made with reference to LOO principles.

You say he claims something he does not actually claim, (Quoting from the Law of One, he's not doing that, he's not even referring to it except in one final case that you ignored)

Ali, I am perplexed that you are not understanding what may otherwise be a very simple exercise: speaking only to the LOO. He is indeed referring to the LOO throughout this assertion only by the mere fact that he is invoking principles of the LOO by using LOO vernacular, i.e. 3D, 4D, STS, STO etc.

However it somehow includes the "fact" that David says everyone will die in 2012. He does not say this. Certainly not in the quotes you give, and as far as I can tell, never ever does he state this.

Perhaps I have misjudged? I was under the distinct impression we were speaking on a level playing field, and that you were intimately familiar with his writings, his claims, and his assertions. It is extremely clear by this one single statement that you may not be? Wilcock coined the terms "Instantaneous vs Gradualist" positions, or perhaps at other times referred to as "Spontaneous vs Gradualist". He writes quite extensively about the fact that all must die at 2012.

He says "This is a quite spontaneous event when it happens, and will have an effect of popping us into time/space similar to the Bermuda Triangle and / or traveling through a ‘stargate.’ The process is not at all painful — it is like the energetic equivalent of a sudden dive into a pool of cold water. It is apparently the most spiritually ecstatic moment we will have ever experienced, and ancient mystics eagerly looked forward to it many thousands of years ago."

To me this does not sound much like death. And it certainly is not a quote from the Law of One... If you ask me it sounds like harvest and this a valid Law of One principle.

Again, it seems clearer now that you have not read Wilcock to any great extent as this is exactly a reference to death of the physical body, and that in his opinion it will not be "a painful death". He writes about 2012 quite extensively, and to this point of physical death at great length, and over a good many years. We may be at an impasse dear Ali if you are attempting to dialogue on the assertions that Wilcock has made and written to quite extensively, but are unfamiliar to what he is referencing, or believes, or has written? I understand more fully now the cross-roads you find yourself at as a result, in as much as it may be difficult if not impossible to move forward without these basic understandings. All is well my friend. I appreciate your impassioned attempts in any event and your willingness. Allow me to direct you to his DIVINE COSMOS site as well as his Ascension 2000 site for more information on his assertions. You will find much information there to be sure that will verify everything I have suggested here and much more as to the many other sources that may be of interest to you as well.

Peace to you my friend,

I don't want to get involved in this, but can I just say that those who foolishly try to change the opinion of one who is fixed in their views earns only fatigue and anger.

Hello Phoenix. Thank you for the wisdom as much as the concern. If the comment is directed to me with respect to fatigue and anger, know that I have none of either. I am attempting in my small way to do this for the unitiated in the LOO, as much to those of us as students as being the only ones capable of having this conversation. We are the only ones who may know the information. I have been asking from the beginning about those that are new to the LOO, or those that are completely unaware of the LOO but may have heard about it through radio spots or odd posts here and there. Do we have even a small responsibility to ask ourselves these questions for their sakes? Dropping even a small seed here and there may cause that certain someone to seek for themselves as a direct result of this exercise. Each must answer this for themselves.

If the information is directed towards members participating, then I hope the same may be in their minds as well as regards your concerns as well.

[Monica]

It seems that the root of the contention is whether, when DW refers to a sudden shift, he means physical death. I remember him saying stuff about a 'big party' after the shift...indicating that we would all retain consciousness and just go poof!

Presumably, we retain consciousness in the death experience, so that's not really all that comforting. To me, the idea of physical death isn't what bothers me, but the idea that there is a set, finite date set for 'the end of the world as we know it.'

That's a little disconcerting to me, even though I've faced death before and have no fear of it. The idea of knowing exactly when it's all going to end makes it a bit difficult to carry on with life. It's always a good idea to live each day as though it were our last, but at least there is still always hope for a future; whereas, with a definite 'end-date' looming ahead, it's, well, sort of a downer, party or not!

I think I rather prefer the idea of us sticking around to help clean up this place...humans did make a mess, right?

The idea of a sudden, mass death (or ascension, if your prefer) of everyone all at the same time directly contradicts recent channelings from Q'uo, and I consider the Q'uo material to be an extension of the Law of One, but in keeping with Q's request to limit our discussion to the actual Law of One books, I won't even go there, other than to mention that Q'uo's explanation (see 'Sessions' section of the forum) seems to resonate with how astrological seasons normally change...without fanfare. I see The Shift as, as Ra indicate, like the clock striking...as when Aries switches over to Taurus, we don't see any indication of such, and yet any astrologer can tell you that the clock has indeed struck the hour and the shift did indeed take place...but we see it not in external fanfare, but in subtle displays of influence. The 76,000-year-cycle is just a longer astrological cycle, right?

The other point of contention seems to be the use of Law of One terminology when discussing non-Law of One-backed-up assertions. It may be that this terminology has been woven into the tapestry of his composite beliefs, to the point that he no longer draws a distinction between that which came from the Law of One and that which did not.

A disclaimer would be nice...something that makes it clear that his views are a composite. I agree with Quantum that claims of being a scholar in any given discipline does sort of imply that the self-professed scholar adhere to the boundaries of said discipline, and not mix dogmas/doctrines. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with the mixing - on the contrary, we all are composites - but perhaps a term more inclusive of the mixture might be more accurate...ie., a person who studies the Bible, Bhagavad Gita, and Koran might be more accurately described as "religious scriptures scholar" rather than "Bible scholar." Although "religious scriptures scholar" could be said to include the Bible, the term "Bible scholar" seems to have a certain exclusivity to it. And, there is an inherent risk of confusion...when the person quotes scripture, how does the reader know whether he's referring to the Bible or the Gita? Especially when they both use some of the same terminology such as "Beloved Lord of the Heavens" and "Creator of all."

Anyway, it seems that the real question is what will happen 'here' as in Earth. But, are we talking about 3D Earth or 4D Earth? Just how do we define 'here?'

If 'HERE' is 3D, then it would be STS negative, according to DW. But, if DW is right about the shift, then 'here' would now be redefined as 4D positive...so the STO's would stay HERE as in 4D positive, while STS guys would ALSO stay HERE but in a different dimension...something like that? Actually I had heard this before, and it predates DW...I heard this back in 1987 at a New Age healing workshop...the channel said there would be a split...the same planet, but split into 2 dimensions (he said 2-way split, whereas DW is saying 3-way) just like on Star Trek...did you ever see that Voyager episode about the 2 ships occupying the same space, and in one of them Geordi got sucked into space, and in the other he lived? This idea is NOT a DW original. And neither is it stated in the Law of One, to my knowledge.

I dunno. I'm not sure how different this idea is from Carla's explanation (from Q'uo) in the last chat, that 4D is already right here, but just not visible...there must be different dimensions, that we attune to or not...Aha! A key difference is that, in Q'uo's version, we all reach that realm naturally, gently, organically...in our own time, when we are ready...and Gaia moves into her new vibration naturally, organically, gently (though maybe not so gently for her inhabitants)...as the turning of the seasons...winter turning to spring...so the real disagreement I have (personally) with DW is NOT the idea of different dimensions, but the idea that we will ALL shift simultaneously...because, see, if there are ALREADY different dimensions, ie., 4D positive ALREADY HERE, just 'out of phase' as they say in Star Trek, then THERE IS NO NEED FOR A SUDDEN SHIFT, because we can EACH INDIVIDUALLY ATTUNE TO THAT DIMENSION at the time that is appropriate for us...whether that is in this life, with no loss of consciousness, or upon death of the physical vehicle.

The idea of the whole planet suddenly shifting into another dimension...totally goes against the very definition of the alternate dimensions...and his use of the word 'here' is confusing. Just where is 'here' when we live in an illusion?

At any rate, it's all rather moot, since none of us can prove what will happen anyway, and we'll all just have to wait and see...the real issue, methinks, is the very idea of claiming to know exactly how it's all gonna go down in the first place...Not even Ra would ever make conclusive predictions about the future...but spoke in terms of the probability/possibility vortex and the effect of the collective free will upon reality.

How is predicting a global event on a particular date any different from, say, Cayce predicting an earthquake in California on such-and-such date?

We know from the Law of One that the illusion is designed in such a way as to provide ample evidence for whatever we wish to believe. For example, those who are convinced that humans must have animal protein will find evidence to back up their belief, while others who choose to believe animal protein isn't need will find different evidence to back up that belief.

Why is it that 2012 seems to have so much evidence for something big happening that it is suddenly acceptable to make absolute predictions?

We all seem to be in agreement that 2012 is significant, yes - but it is the interpretation of that significance that is called into question.

I submit that if DW is indeed Cayce reincarnated, then it may be that he's simply doing what he did before - perhaps getting a glimpse into the probability/possibility vortex and reporting on one possible/probable scenario as though it were absolute fact.

So, the issue is not whether his predicted scenario is in alignment with the Law of One - it could be argued both ways, though not necessarily with equal conviction - the real issue is: why is this scenario being presented as absolute, a done deal?

Aside from whether the sudden shift idea is in alignment with the Law of One or not...the bigger question is: Is it in alignment with the Law of One to make absolute predictions at all?

[Ali Quadir]

I won't stick to the Law of One. That suggestion is unfair.

THE PRINCIPLES OF "THE Law of One" HAVE BEEN INVOKED. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE THESE PRINCIPLES WERE NOWHERE EITHER SPOKEN TO OR FOUND BEFORE OR AFTER AS GIVEN BY Ra IN "THE Law of One" TEACHINGS. THEREFORE "THE Law of One' IS SINGULARLY OUR SOURCE WHEN REFERRING TO THESE PRINCIPLES AS MUCH AS TO THESE ASSERTIONS.

If Ra mentioned gravity, does this mean we have to judge his words in Newtons terms? Or Quantum physical terms?

I don't know how much more clear I can be? If one is going to invoke the principles of the LOO, then one must invoke only what was taught.

I'm sorry, if this is the basis of our misunderstanding then we've come to the core matter rather quickly... I don't believe this is true. In fact, I believe that if we forbid others to mix materials we'll never actually get any progress.

Telling us that we can judge ALL his comments purely from the Law of One knowing that he has multiple sources is in effect sabotaging the process and judging him unfairly.

I find this to be a curious statement. I am under the impression that we have a tacit understanding that this forum is for the further study of the LOO, not other sources as primary?

This is the description of the forum.

A forum for seekers to discuss the challenges and rewards of spiritual evolution on a more personal basis, including but not limited to: relationships, family, work, parenting, study, hobbies, and break dancing. The best of personal evolution.

So I don't share your tacit understanding.

The way I see it you're quoting him stating from a non Law of One source, then claim that this is not a Law of One source, and therefore his understanding of the Law of One is flawed...

Your English alludes me here a little, but if I am correct in your meaning, this is exactly what I am stating, in as much as he is indeed utilizing the LOO, but not as undiluted LOO. We in effect are reading "Wilcokian" by virtues of it being based on the LOO, but not purely from the LOO. This in effect equals something different, but it assuredly is not Ra, or their teachings, or the LOO. You are in effect making all my points for me Ali? Can you see this?

No I am not. The fact that you think so means that you are missing the points I am actually making.
It is wrong to judge a man by your own standards. Just because YOU think Wilcock should stick to the canon does not mean he should. The fact that he does not, does not make him any less a scholar in the dictionary definition of the word.

Again, I think your making this easier for me than expected. He has stated repeatedly that he is a scholar of the LOO. That is the only claim that begs questioning. How then is the line of reasoning flawed? Can we not simply as students of the LOO stick simply to the LOO and assertions made regarding the LOO? This has been from the onset and outset the question posed, Nothing else.

Again.... If you wish to say David says more than the Law of One, and uses the Law of One as one of his sources you're correct. However you seem to conclude from this that his remarks about the Law of One are therefore flawed. I cannot follow that jump in logic.

Same answer. Forget everything else Wilcock speaks about as regards all non-LOO materials or references,

How can I forget those? If YOU use exactly those remarks as basis for your assertion that Wilcock is not Scholarly enough? I am willing to judge Wilcock on the basis of Law of One scholarship but only when he speaks about the Law of One, the fact that he uses the words does not mean he speaks about the Law of One. He clearly mentions another source than the Law of One you claim he speaks from. I use english, does that mean I cannot contradict Shakespeare?

To show David isn't a scholar. You should show where Wilcock misrepresents the Law of One in a clear unambiguous manner. You have not done this, your objections are that he uses the Law of One as a source for assertions on topics that are not about the Law of One....

His work is a derived work. If the derived word is not a verbatim copy of the original this does not mean the original was violated in any way. You have to show where it's violated. Not where it's derived.

I am not interested in what other scientists say as regards Wilcocks assertions. I am only interested in what Wilcock says in regards to the LOO. Period. The scientists assertions may or may not be true. This is not in question. I do not pretend to claim at all that he gets his info only from the LOO? What are you misreading? I emphatically suggest that he indeed blends much info into the LOO, which mixes, distorts, and blurs the LOO.

Yet what David says about these other scientists is interpreted by you as to be stated from the Law of One. He uses the Law of One as a source, he is not making claims about the interpretation of the Law of One.

As I said before a scholar does not need to agree with the original material he just needs to understand it, and represent it accurately. He is also not disallowed to make derived works.

David only states here that the Law of One describes the contact with 4d entities as vastly different from the contact with the current batch of 4d humans visiting earth. And ascribes this to polarity.

Please re-read my post again. Also re-read what Wilcock asserts? He clearly states 3D STO dies, but that 3D STS elite survive?

No, he does not assert this. Please cite him where he says this. I've read your post. And the quotes you gave of David twice. He does not state that we die.. He states repeatedly that the shift means a transmutation of matter. Physical death is not an accurate description. He compares the effect to stepping through a Stargate. Which is obviously incomparable.

Not at all dear Ali. There is a wealth of discussion to be had as regards the assertions made as relates to the LOO singularly. May we not simply do this without all the other dialogue as to his other sources? I am only interested in the LOO as regards bring4th or as regards Wilcock's assertions. There are many many many other forums and sites that discuss all the other topics mentioned in all of Wilcock's posts. Wilcock may be brilliant as regards these. He may not be. I don't know. I am singularly concerned only as regards the LOO and to his assertions made with reference to LOO principles.

Then judge him on those principles... From where I am standing you're not doing so. The quote you give only passingly mentions the Law of One. And not in a relevant point you objected to.

You're stating that his understanding of the Law of One is poorly based on his non Law of One statements. This is a huge leap in logic. It's called a non sequitur fallacy in formal rhetorics. You're making it.

Ali, I am perplexed that you are not understanding what may otherwise be a very simple exercise: speaking only to the LOO. He is indeed referring to the LOO throughout this assertion only by the mere fact that he is invoking principles of the LOO by using LOO vernacular, i.e. 3D, 4D, STS, STO etc.

Well I disagree with the restriction you use.. In my opinion Wilcock's total material is a derived work from the Law of One with other material weaved in. The fact that it's a derived work does not mean it contradicts the original. And it also does not mean Wilcock is not a scholar of the original material.

However it somehow includes the "fact" that David says everyone will die in 2012. He does not say this. Certainly not in the quotes you give, and as far as I can tell, never ever does he state this.

Perhaps I have misjudged? I was under the distinct impression we were speaking on a level playing field, and that you were intimately familiar with his writings, his claims, and his assertions. It is extremely clear by this one single statement that you may not be? Wilcock coined the terms "Instantaneous vs Gradualist" positions, or perhaps at other times referred to as "Spontaneous vs Gradualist". He writes quite extensively about the fact that all must die at 2012.

Cite references please. I do not see him stating this. Certainly not in the references you give. And while I accept that I may not be informed about all his statements. I reaffirm that I am well informed and I believe you're misunderstanding the man. So if you cite references we can see how this works out.

We've been through this before. Instead of implying that I am uninformed please just cite the references that show I am wrong. Your statement now is without any merit.

All is well my friend. I appreciate your impassioned attempts in any event and your willingness. Allow me to direct you to his DIVINE COSMOS site as well as his Ascension 2000 site for more information on his assertions.

Not good enough... You did this before and you agreed later it was not good enough then, please support your statements. Do not play the authority game but give us the facts. So we may determine ourselves that what you say is true.

Like I said before, it's ambiguity that leads us to misunderstandings. You're making some basic unspoken personal assumptions and since Wilcock violates those you consider him wrong. I do not make those assumptions (I make different ones) and therefore I don't see him as wrong.

[3D Sunset]

(Note: I began this post prior to several posts which frankly concern me. It seems that this discussion is becoming the quagmire that I feared it would. My colleagues appear on the brink of attacking each other, rather than discussing the facts, because there seems to be no agreed upon framework for the discussions to take place. Thus it is with some apprehension that I now make this post, but make it I will in an attempt to "cut to the meat" of the issue, at least in my humble opinion. Should I choose to post on this topic again, then my future posts will be more brief and attempt to address one single point rather than a few paragraphs as I did here. I would suggest a similar approach in order to keep the posts of a more manageable size and focus the otherwise fragmented discussion.)

As to your request to use only the Law of One though Q, I believe that you may be disappointed, primarily because there are many transitory topics on which The Law of One is mute (not moot, mind you, but mute, meaning it provides no or vanishingly little information). I would also agree with Ali in that David does not present this information as being derived from the Law of One, or even interpreted from it. What Mr. Wilcock (henceforth referred to as "the author") attests is that his theories are consistent with the Law of One. This makes our task of scholarly analysis of his theories wrt the Law of One somewhat more complicated, since to challenge the author's assertions, we find ourselves needing to enumerate assertions that are inconsistent with the Law of One in areas where the Law of One is largely silent.

Given that caveat, I'd like to dissect the quote and examine it in pieces looking for areas where we may find inconsistencies. I will triage his statements, based upon my interpretation of the Law of One, as follows:

1. Consistent with the Law of One - Consistent with my reading of the Law of One (For efficiency of time, references will only be cited upon PM request.)

2. Not inconsistent with the Law of One - In my opinion, the statement is on a topic that is not discussed in the Law of One (No references will be cited, since this is like proving a negative.)

3. Inconsistent with the Law of One - The statement conflicts with my interpretation of the Law of One (References will be cited that are in conflict with the statement.)

If you do graduate, you will most likely move into "fourth-density space/time" and stay with the Earth in this totally new plane of existence that is now about to be born.

Dependent upon your interpretation of some of the author's words, and those of Ra in v, this is either consistent with the Law of One or slightly inconsistent.

By using the term "most likely" the author gives himself some wiggle room that he does not appear to need. Clearly from the TLOO, 4D existence happens in 4D space/time, and per Ra will occur on Earth for those 3D positive entities that graduate hereon.

There is much open to interpretation as to what the author means by "move into". If by "moving into" he means death and rebirth, then again this is directly supported by the Law of One. If he means that our 3D bodies will somehow instantaneously transform into 4D bodies (as has been eluded to in other works by the author), then I suggest that this is contrary to the Law of One in the following passage as well as others: (I know that this has been hashed over before, so I beg everyone's indulgence as I provide my interpretation thereof).

Questioner: Then at some time in the future the fourth-density sphere will be fully activated. What is the difference between full activation and partial activation for this sphere?

Ra: I am Ra. At this time the cosmic influxes are conducive to true color green core particles being formed and material of this nature thus being formed. However, there is a mixture of the yellow-ray and green-ray environments at this time necessitating the birthing of transitional mind/body/spirit complex types of energy distortions. At full activation of the true color green density of love the planetary sphere will be solid and inhabitable upon its own and the birthing that takes place will have been transformed through the process of time, shall we say, to the appropriate type of vehicle to appreciate in full the fourth-density planetary environment. At this nexus the green-ray environment exists to a far greater extent in time/space than in space/time.

Questioner: Could you describe the difference that you are speaking of with respect to time/space and space/time?

Ra: I am Ra. For the sake of your understanding we will use the working definition of inner planes. There is a great deal of subtlety invested in this sound vibration complex, but it, by itself, will perhaps fulfill your present need.

Questioner: I will make this statement and have you correct me. What we have is, as our planet is spiraled by the spiraling action of the entire major galaxy and our planetary system spirals into the new position, the fourth density vibrations becoming more and more pronounced. These atomic core vibrations begin to create, more and more completely, the fourth density sphere and the fourth-density bodily complexes for inhabitation of that sphere. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is partially correct. To be corrected is the concept of the creation of green-ray density bodily complexes. This creation will be gradual and will take place beginning with your third-density type of physical vehicle and, through the means of bisexual reproduction, become by evolutionary processes, the fourth-density body complexes.

Questioner: Then are these entities of whom we have spoken, the third density harvestable who have been transferred, the ones who then will, by bisexual reproduction, create the fourth-density complexes that are necessary?

Ra: I am Ra. The influxes of true color green energy complexes will more and more create the conditions in which the atomic structure of cells of bodily complexes is that of the density of love. The mind/body/spirit complexes inhabiting these physical vehicles will be, and to some extent, are, those of whom you spoke and, as harvest is completed, the harvested entities of this planetary influence.

If you do not graduate, you live out the rest of your life in Earth’s third-density time/space — what most people call the ‘astral plane’ — and your next life will be on another third-density planet, custom-built for everyone on Earth who will still need it after the end of Earth’s third-density cycle.

The author here implies that existence in t/s is almost identical to existence in s/t, and could occur in a way that is transparent to the entity. I would say the statement "you live out the rest of your life in Earth’s third-density time/space" is inconsistent with the Law of One in the following passages:

Questioner: As an entity goes through the death process in third-density it finds itself in time/space. It finds itself in a different set of circumstances. Would you please describe the circumstances or properties of time/space and then the process of healing of incarnative experiences that some entities encounter?

Ra: I am Ra. Although this query is difficult to answer adequately, due to the limitations of your space/time sound vibration complexes, we shall respond to the best of our ability.

The hallmark of time/space is the inequity between time and space. In your space/time the spatial orientation of material causes a tangible framework for illusion. In time/space the inequity is upon the shoulders of that property known to you as time. This property renders entities and experiences intangible in a relative sense. In your framework each particle or core vibration moves at a velocity which approaches what you call the speed of light from the direction of supraluminal velocities.

Thus the time/space or metaphysical experience is that which is very finely tuned and, although an analog of space/time, lacking in its tangible characteristics. In these metaphysical planes there is a great deal of what you call time which is used to review and re-review the biases and learn/teachings of a prior, as you would call it, space/time incarnation. The extreme fluidity of these regions makes it possible for much to be penetrated which must needs be absorbed before the process of healing of an entity may be accomplished. Each entity is located in a somewhat immobile state much as you are located in space/time in a somewhat immobile state in time. In this immobile space the entity has been placed by the form-maker and higher self so that it may be in the proper configuration for learn/teaching that which it has received in the space/time incarnation.

Depending upon this time/space locus there will be certain helpers which assist in this healing process. The process involves seeing in full the experience, seeing it against the backdrop of the mind/body/spirit complex total experience, forgiving the self for all missteps as regards the missed guideposts during the incarnation and, finally, the careful assessment of the next necessities for learning. This is done entirely by the higher self until an entity has become conscious in space/time of the process and means of spiritual evolution at which time the entity will consciously take part in all decisions.

It seems clear to me, from this, that existence in time/space could not be confused with 3D space/time. Thus "living out their lives" which implies normalcy seems at odds with the above quote. Still, I suppose that one could argue that the cosmos chooses to create a s/t like environment in t/s and moves those not yet harvestable entities into it. This notion seems inconsistent with the following portion of Law of One:

Some of them are in underground bases and others stay on the surface of the Earth.

Again, not inconsistent with the Law of One. I would note that the concept of 3D entities existing on 4D Earth is entirely consistent with the Law of One, over time.

If however, the author is implying that 3D entities will coexist with early 4D positive entities on Earth, then here we have both an inconsistency and a conundrum wrt the Law of One. On the one hand, Ra indicates that in an early 4D positive Earth, there will be no 3D entities (indeed, Ra indicates that Earth's Third Density will be placed into "potentiation".

Questioner: Then as the fourth-density vibrations come in this means that
the planet can support entities of fourth-density core vibration. Will the planet then still be first-density core vibration and will there be seconddensity entities on it with second-density vibrations, and will there be thirddensity entities on it with third-density vibrations?

Ra: You must see the Earth, as you call it, as being seven Earths. There is red, orange, yellow, and there will soon be a completed green color vibratory locus for fourth-density entities which they will call Earth. During the fourth-density experience, due to the lack of development of fourthdensity entities, the third-density planetary sphere is not useful for habitation since the early fourth-density entity will not know precisely how to maintain the illusion that fourth-density cannot be seen or determined from any instrumentation available to any third-density.

As noted earlier, Ra also indicates that 4D beings will evolve from 3D beings, thus implying that there must be some overlap. This could be reasoned away in the Law of One by saying that those entities giving birth to the first 4D beings are dual activated 3D entities, which although they are truly 3D entities, they have already been harvested, and will be able to survive on the 4D Earth, or alternatively that Earth's Third Density body will not be placed into potentiation until after the last dual activated entity has transitioned. The author on the other hand, appears to resolve this by assuming that harvestable 3D positive entities "simultaneously transmute", as it were, into 4D positive entities. As noted in the quote above, I feel that this concept is inconsistent with the Law of One.

Some of these people who remain in third-density space/time also evolve into fourth-density, but as far as we can tell they graduate into the negative path".

Again, not inconsistent with the Law of One. The proposition of 3D entities co-existing with 4D entities on a 4D positive Earth is consistent with the Law of One. Given that the purpose for 3D life at all, is to choose, I would conclude that when a 3D re-population occurs, that both positive and negative polarization and harvests would be possible.

For what it's worth, that is my assessment of the passage presented. I hope that it is of some value in the discussion.

Love and Light,

3D Sunset

[Quantum]

For what it's worth, that is my assessment of the passage presented. I hope that it is of some value in the discussion.

You are indeed a scholar and a gentleman dear 3D. Your participation in these discussions will no doubt be invaluable. Thank you for your efforts and contributions.

there seems to be no agreed upon framework for the discussions to take place.
1. Consistent with the Law of One - Consistent with my reading of the Law of One (For efficiency of time, references will only be cited upon PM request.)
2. Not inconsistent with the Law of One - In my opinion, the statement is on a topic that is not discussed in the Law of One (No references will be cited, since this is like proving a negative.)
3. Inconsistent with the Law of One - The statement conflicts with my interpretation of the Law of One (References will be cited that are in conflict with the statement.)

The framework proposed was that we remain strictly with the LOO. What you have proposed in your triage is brilliant. Let us use exactly this as the framework. It has never been proposed or challenged that "the author" is not an educated reader of many works. Neither was it ever proposed that said author is correct or incorrect when speaking to these many works. It would be an exhaustive undertaking to uncover the many other assertions said author makes to these other works as being true or false, nor would it be worth the effort. It would be far more simple to remain but with the one simple book, that to my knowledge is the only book he singularly claimed scholarly knowledge to, i.e. The LOO. A scholar would make it a definitive point to never be inconsistent with a work he claims scholarly knowledge of without first checking his facts. This is the antithesis of being scholarly. If we disagree on this definition we have a problem as it may not be disagreed upon given the definition of same: "one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject" (scholarly as defined in dictionary.com).

You are then spot on target, albeit perhaps more elegantly if not more clearly defined. Thank you. Your point two in the triage is where we may somewhat disagree in concept however in as much as one may then say anything derived from the LOO, but not be inconsistent with the LOO, simply because the LOO did not address it, and as a result does not contradict it? I may then make innocuous statements such as: (1) some of us in 3D go into 5D at 2012 simply because Ra did not say that we do not, or (2) I may likewise make absurd statements such as ET technology brought down the trade towers? It is in fact in point two that Wilcock mostly lives, both in the LOO as well as outside of the LOO. I maintain that given the author is speaking to LOO principles by simply invoking the vernacular (3D/4D/STS, etc), that most of the questionable concepts are simply inconsistent with the LOO in as much as it is nowhere mentioned in the LOO. This does not exhibit profound knowledge of the particular subject of the LOO, as much as it invokes profound speculation not supported by the LOO. I maintain that assertions such as these are not consistent with the LOO in as much as they are at the very least extremely transitory to the highest degree, which renders them inconsistent as a result by definition. If not mentioned or suggested in the LOO, it is less than presumptuous to suggest it as nothing less than wild conjecture from the LOO, and therefore clearly from an altogether different source other than the LOO.

If you do not graduate, you live out the rest of your life in Earth’s third-density time/space — what most people call the ‘astral plane’ — and your next life will be on another third-density planet, custom-built for everyone on Earth who will still need it after the end of Earth’s third-density cycle.

The author here implies that existence in t/s is almost identical to existence in s/t, and could occur in a way that is transparent to the entity. I would say the statement "you live out the rest of your life in Earth’s third-density time/space" is inconsistent with the Law of One in the following passages:

Agreed. This is less than scholarly or profound knowledge of a particular subject.

The concept of existing in t/s with no opportunity to polarize seems contrary to both the above passage of the Law of One and the notion of an efficient allocation of resources....Thus, in this quote, I must conclude that the author is basing his statements on works that are at odds with the Law of One.

Once again agreed. Thus this is less than scholarly, i.e. demonstrating profound knowledge of a particular subject.

Only recently have we discovered that apparently a small number of people — most likely those involved in secret government programs and leaning towards the negative path — do stay in "third-density space/time" — i.e. the physical Earth as it exists now — after 2012.

(On a personal note, I find the author's use of the "royal we" in many of these writings is both confusing and condescending. Sometimes "we" means "I" and sometimes "we" really means we. I believe that "we" means "I" in this case.) Still, this statement is not inconsistent with the Law of One, as the Law of One never indicates that anything will happen in 2012 to remove third density s/t entities from the Earth.

Some of them are in underground bases and others stay on the surface of the Earth.

Again, not inconsistent with the Law of One. I would note that the concept of 3D entities existing on 4D Earth is entirely consistent with the Law of One, over time.
If however, the author is implying that 3D entities will coexist with early 4D positive entities on Earth, then here we have both an inconsistency and a conundrum wrt the Law of One. On the one hand, Ra indicates that in an early 4D positive Earth, there will be no 3D entities (refernce to be added later)

As noted earlier, Ra also indicates that 4D beings will evolve from 3D beings, thus implying that there must be some overlap. This could be reasoned away in the Law of One by saying that those entities giving birth to the first 4D beings are dual activated 3D entities, which although they are truly 3D entities, they have already been harvested. The author appears to resolve this by assuming that harvestable 3D positive entities "simultaneously transmute", as it were, into 4D positive entities. As noted in the quote above, I feel that this concept is inconsistent with the Law of One.

Agreed once again. If a scholar is inconsistent with the material he professes profound knowledge of by way of his own interspersed readings and/or blendings from other sources, one must either conclude that the other sources are false, or that his interpretation of the LOO is false, or even perhaps both.

I close by restating that it is in point two of your triage that you have inadvertently perhaps hit one nail quite squarely on the head, in as much as anyone may say anything derived from the LOO, leaving everything wide open to say anything as long as it is not inconsistent with the LOO by the mere fact that it is not mentioned. I maintain that it is indeed in the "transient information" in and of itself that Wilcock lives and breaths which is tantamount to being inconsistent with the LOO in and of itself? Point three then may be where we need concentrate, as indeed you also have.

Seeking Truth,

L/L

Q

[Quantum]

Forgive a 2nd post, but for you dear Ali Quadir as the proof you requested:

I find it extraordinary that one may claim to have "The Facts" to an event that has yet to occur (?), much less to a disagreement as to an interpretation of the Ra quotes which suggest there may be a gradualist position as well? I find it equally as presumptuous that one may be tired of repeating himself to "These presumed Facts" he has taken it upon himself to see as Facts? Here then Ali is what I meant in my previous post as regards the truer fact that Wilcock has often, repeatedly by his own admission, repeated himself many, many times as to the end of life as we know it in 3D...i.e. we all die. It is not a small point, and it is not one that Wilcock readers are not unfamiliar with. This is why I suggested I assumed you as a well read supporter at least aware this and required no proof to it. It is a well established often repeated position.

http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?op...&Itemid=30
by David Wilcock:

Wilcock: So, I will show you, today, some of the proof that there IS NO responsible 'gradualist' argument that can be made from the Law of One
series. This is the first major step towards building up a whole mini-book
about this scholarly question. The time has come, because I'm getting tired
of repeating myself, to be quite honest!

Wilcock goes on to offer a Ra quote using the word "discrete" so as to drive his point home. While discrete may mean separate and distinct as he suggests, it is more universally utilized as meaning circumspection, or of a delicate nature, etc.

Ra: However, the nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discrete placement of vibratory level.

Wilcock: DISCRETE PLACEMENT. Discrete means "separate and distinct." A quantum leap. They also say that there is a "boundary" that we move over. When is the boundary? 2011-2013.
DISCRETE MEANS 'SPONTANEOUS'
Guess what… even before all the other supporting quotes about 3D/4D electrical incompatibility, what you've just read about the photon shifting across a "discrete boundary" is proof positive, within the Law of One physics, that this is a spontaneous event.

Discrete may be interpreted to mean that there is nothing more than a delicate boundary that we move over verses a separate or spontaneous or quantum leap or abrupt end. It may be so discrete as to be elegant, delicate, fine, gradual, or unostentatious.

discrete – adjective
*judicious in one's conduct or speech, esp. with regard to respecting privacy or maintaining silence about something of a delicate nature; prudent; circumspect.
*showing prudence and circumspection; decorous: a discreet silence.
*modestly unobtrusive; unostentatious, e.g.: a discreet, finely wrought gold necklace.

Darryl: OK, so how does this relate to the polarized ascension theory talked about...? I believe from my impression of the dream that both harvest candidates and non-harvest candidates survive the event, and the world doesn't suddenly become a 4D paradise, but in actuality a really difficult place to survive for a while.


Wilcock: Not true. The fourth-density world becomes solid and inhabitable on its own as of 2011-2013, and there are no further earth changes. This is what all the quotes I've just shared with you actually say. It’s an entirely different world that is NOT damaged by previous Earth Changes.

The 3D world might well be a big mess for a while, but that's not where we're living anymore at that point. No one is. All are harvested regardless of progress.

Ra: To answer your query about death, these entities will die according to third-density necessities…

Wilcock: The transition of 3D to 4D is NOT gradualist. These quotes proves it. As I have since written, this form of "death" is a technicality — a compromise Ra had to make in wording in describing transmutation.

So here we presumably have Wilcock suggesting that the death sentence he alludes to by the Ra quote is a technical term that really only means a transmutation? Wilcock presumes to actually understand the mind of Ra in mid 6th density by suggesting he knows when Ra is making a compromise, and moreover knows when and why Ra had to make it? Is this not presumptuousness to the highest order? Wilcock now by this very single statement elevates himself to the position of diving the mind of Ra in as much as he knows their reasons?

Lets us assume by the Ra quote that we do in fact die. Clearly Wilcock assumes it on some level? Based on this assumption Wilcock then goes so far to then even disagree with Ra by suggesting Ra meant that we do not die, but instead waters down the Ra definition to transmutation instead? It is presumptuous to say the least.

Being more judicious, my interpretation might allow that perhaps Ra meant that we do in fact die, but that we die "according to third density necessities", meaning that we do so naturally, but only at the end of the shift, meaning naturally over the course of the several hundred years Ra alludes to. I thus interpreted the Ra quote verbatim, allowing Ra to stand and explain themselves by their own words and their own teachings, allowing also the gradualist interpretation that Ra suggested as to the several hundred years of transition, and allowed Ra to do so on their own without the presumptuous requirement of me needing to explain my definition of death by changing theirs to mean that death means transmutation, much less being presumptuous enough to know that they were forced into a compromise as a technicality for misstating it.

This is what I mean about literally bending the interpretations, so much so as to restate what was given, even going so far as to force oneself into the mind of Ra so as to reinterpret what was stated by Ra (here literally a reinterpretation), as much as know They(Ra) had to make this compromise, all in order to fit one's opening premise, so much so that one then is capable of bending the interpretation to fit one's conclusion. If the trajectory is off from the onset, as is the bullet or rocket that leaves the chamber or the earth, so too will the conclusion be as off as is the bulls-eye or said rocket to the moon.

The questions remain as to the assertions. Are the Wilcock assertions scholarly if indeed many are inconsistent with the LOO? Is this last statement to "death verses transmutation" proof as to the ambiguity of the author as much to his assertions, verses our ambiguity Ali? Does the author's ambiguity as to bend definitions not render the premises as less than scholarly? I leave it to you to decide.

I believe I may say with full conviction that even stating that he, the author, has "The Facts", much less that he is able to divine what Ra was forced to compromise as a definition, and that the word death according to Ra is a technicality, according to Wilcock, and to be able to do so on all counts as FACTS even before the event, is patently, well, let me be kind, and simply suggest less than scholarly.

Q

[Monica]

I found this on the DC site you posted:

Ra: Moreover, there exists probability/possibility vortices which spiral towards your bellicose actions. Many of these vortices are not of the nuclear war but of the less annihilatory but more lengthy so-called “conventional” war. This situation, if formed in your illusion, would offer many opportunities for seeking and for service.


DW: Ra is VERY under-stated on things like this. So when they say "many of these vortices," they're basically saying "this is what's going to happen unless something wild comes along to change it." By all evidence, nothing has changed it.

Just based on my own observation, I'd say a LOT has changed in the last few years...in the people that I know...their attitudes and degrees of open-mindedness vs bigotry...I see so many people polarizing intensely rapidly, it's astonishing! And, on a global level as well.

I find it extraordinary that one may claim to have "The Facts" to an event that has yet to occur (?), much less to a disagreement as to an interpretation of the Ra quotes which suggest there may be a gradualist position as well?

I admit I do have a bit of pet peeve whenever anyone calls opinions/interpretations facts.

---

...Wilcock has often, repeatedly by his own admission, repeated himself many, many times as to the end of life as we know it in 3D...i.e. we all die. It is not a small point...

I agree that it's no small point. Now I understand what the Christians are going thru in their churches, with all the disagreement about whether there will be an imminent rapture...many of them are very scared because of the supposed impending armageddon...Is this not just another version of that? It's exactly the same concept...which leads me to conclude that it's either true...or there is a mass FEAR that has grabbed hold of many who seek to divine the future based on their interpretation of their own respective 'Bible' whether that be the Christian Bible...or the Law of One.

Being that we actually have a date attached to our version, and that date is a mere 3 years away, and being that belief in said version of rapture can certainly induce fear, I would say that discussion of this topic is indeed important...no small thing.

Wilcock: So, I will show you, today, some of the proof that there IS NO responsible 'gradualist' argument that can be made from the Law of One
series.

There is a difference between evidence and proof.

Proof can be applied only to that which is tangible. We can have proof that gravity works because it is demonstrable.

Evidence, otoh, is that which builds a case, but might not necessarily be tangibly provable. Opinions and interpretations are in the realm of the unprovable. That's why there are so many religions in the world! And even thousands of denominations in the same religion! They can't agree on their interpretations...

Wilcock goes on to offer a Ra quote using the word "discrete" so as to drive his point home. While discrete may mean separate and distinct as he suggests, it is more universally utilized as meaning circumspection, or of a delicate nature, etc.

Ra: However, the nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discrete placement of vibratory level.

Wilcock: DISCRETE PLACEMENT. Discrete means "separate and distinct." A quantum leap. They also say that there is a "boundary" that we move over. When is the boundary? 2011-2013.
DISCRETE MEANS 'SPONTANEOUS'
Guess what… even before all the other supporting quotes about 3D/4D electrical incompatibility, what you've just read about the photon shifting across a "discrete boundary" is proof positive, within the Law of One physics, that this is a spontaneous event.

Discrete may be interpreted to mean that there is nothing more than a delicate boundary that we move over verses a separate or spontaneous or quantum leap or abrupt end. It may be so discrete as to be elegant, delicate, fine, gradual, or unostentatious.

discrete – adjective
*judicious in one's conduct or speech, esp. with regard to respecting privacy or maintaining silence about something of a delicate nature; prudent; circumspect.
*showing prudence and circumspection; decorous: a discreet silence.
*modestly unobtrusive; unostentatious, e.g.: a discreet, finely wrought gold necklace.

That is the definition of discreet.

Here is the definition of discrete:

discrete - 5 dictionary results
dis⋅crete
  /dɪˈskrit/
–adjective
1. apart or detached from others; separate; distinct: six discrete parts.
2. consisting of or characterized by distinct or individual parts; discontinuous.
3. Mathematics.
a. (of a topology or topological space) having the property that every subset is an open set.
b. defined only for an isolated set of points: a discrete variable.
c. using only arithmetic and algebra; not involving calculus: discrete methods.

Being that the homonyms discrete and discreet sound alike but have different meanings, and being that Carla's channeling was recorded on a tape recorder, just how do any of us know which meaning Ra intended?

Did Carla, upon waking from her trance, tell Don, "Ra meant d-i-s-c-r-e-t-e, not d-i-s-c-r-e-e-t"...?

Being that she didn't even remember what had been said, um, no, I don't think she did that. So, the word got transcribed according to the inclination (guess) of the transcriber.

Just this one single word, with 2 meanings, can totally change the meaning of that passage.

[3D Sunset]

Your point two in the triage is where we may somewhat disagree in concept however in as much as one may then say anything derived from the LOO, but not be inconsistent with the LOO, simply because the LOO did not address it, and as a result does not contradict it? I may then make innocuous statements such as: (1) some of us in 3D go into 5D at 2012 simply because Ra did not say that we do not, or (2) I may likewise make absurd statements such as ET technology brought down the trade towers? It is in fact in point two that Wilcock mostly lives, both in the LOO as well as outside of the LOO. I maintain that given the author is speaking to LOO principles by simply invoking the vernacular (3D/4D/STS, etc), that most of the questionable concepts are simply inconsistent with the LOO in as much as it is nowhere mentioned in the LOO. This does not exhibit profound knowledge of the particular subject of the LOO, as much as it invokes profound speculation not supported by the LOO. I maintain that assertions such as these are not consistent with the LOO in as much as they are at the very least extremely transitory to the highest degree, which renders them inconsistent as a result by definition. If not mentioned or suggested in the LOO, it is less than presumptuous to suggest it as nothing less than wild conjecture from the LOO, and therefore clearly from an altogether different source other than the LOO.

I disagree with you on a number of levels. Clearly as scholars of the the Law of One, we are interested in expanding our understanding of the Law of One to areas beyond what is covered therein. This is both the nature of scientific inquiry and the nature of humans. You may choose to live only within the material specifically included in the works of Ra when you use its lexicon, I choose not to. I believe that this is consistent with both societal norms regarding the expansion of the use of words once they have entered a language, and with the scientific process.

I would also disagree that that any information outside that which is covered in the Law of One is transitory by nature. For example, Ra indicates that the works of Dewey B. Larson were "correct as far as they went". Thus, one would conclude that the Reciprocal System of Theories is consistent with the Law of One. However, Mr. Larson went on to publish other material after Ra made this statement. To me, this new material would be classified as "not inconsistent", but I find it absurd to claim that it is either transitory or inconsistent with the Law of One, simply because it was not specifically covered therein. This is a rather black and white example, there are many shades of gray.

I encourage you and everyone to form you own opinions and draw your own conclusions based upon your own reading of the Law of One. I am quite comfortable with my described methodology, and will keep to it. I think that you are correct in saying that this is a critical point, and difference between our approaches to analyzing Mr. Wilcock's work, but I think you are being far to restrictive on he and all others interested in filling in gaps not covered by the Law of One, if you withhold the use of even the terminology used by Ra to only those areas specifically covered by Ra.

Love and Light,

3D Sunset

[Ali Quadir]

Good posts 3D.

Tangible material and concrete objections. I will add my comments and though I disagree at some points in the end I can't argue with clear factual verifiable statements.

I also agree with your three categories. Wilcocks reliability depends on what we hope to get from him. The three categories clearly indicate that this differs per person.

If you do graduate, you will most likely move into "fourth-density space/time" and stay with the Earth in this totally new plane of existence that is now about to be born.

Dependent upon your interpretation of some of the author's words, and those of Ra in v, this is either consistent with the Law of One or slightly inconsistent.

By using the term "most likely" the author gives himself some wiggle room that he does not appear to need. Clearly from the TLOO, 4D existence happens in 4D space/time, and per Ra will occur on Earth for those 3D positive entities that graduate hereon.

I interpreted "most likely" in this case refers to the possibility for STS graduation. A small minority will move off planet and will be placed in another 4d negative planet. So there's no real wiggle room just his understanding.

There is much open to interpretation as to what the author means by "move into". If by "moving into" he means death and rebirth, then again this is directly supported by the Law of One. If he means that our 3D bodies will somehow instantaneously transform into 4D bodies (as has been eluded to in other works by the author), then I suggest that this is contrary to the Law of One in the following passage as well as others: (I know that this has been hashed over before, so I beg everyone's indulgence as I provide my interpretation thereof).

I think wilcock is clearly in favor of the instantaneous shift theory. He shows this in his other writings. So he would be opposed in your perceptions. Who is right depends on our understanding and cannot be determined at this point.

Questioner: Then at some time in the future the fourth-density sphere will be fully activated. What is the difference between full activation and partial activation for this sphere?

Ra: I am Ra. At this time the cosmic influxes are conducive to true color green core particles being formed and material of this nature thus being formed. However, there is a mixture of the yellow-ray and green-ray environments at this time necessitating the birthing of transitional mind/body/spirit complex types of energy distortions. At full activation of the true color green density of love the planetary sphere will be solid and inhabitable upon its own and the birthing that takes place will have been transformed through the process of time, shall we say, to the appropriate type of vehicle to appreciate in full the fourth-density planetary environment. At this nexus the green-ray environment exists to a far greater extent in time/space than in space/time.

Questioner: Could you describe the difference that you are speaking of with respect to time/space and space/time?

Ra: I am Ra. For the sake of your understanding we will use the working definition of inner planes. There is a great deal of subtlety invested in this sound vibration complex, but it, by itself, will perhaps fulfill your present need.

Questioner: I will make this statement and have you correct me. What we have is, as our planet is spiraled by the spiraling action of the entire major galaxy and our planetary system spirals into the new position, the fourth density vibrations becoming more and more pronounced. These atomic core vibrations begin to create, more and more completely, the fourth density sphere and the fourth-density bodily complexes for inhabitation of that sphere. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is partially correct. To be corrected is the concept of the creation of green-ray density bodily complexes. This creation will be gradual and will take place beginning with your third-density type of physical vehicle and, through the means of bisexual reproduction, become by evolutionary processes, the fourth-density body complexes.

Questioner: Then are these entities of whom we have spoken, the third density harvestable who have been transferred, the ones who then will, by bisexual reproduction, create the fourth-density complexes that are necessary?

Ra: I am Ra. The influxes of true color green energy complexes will more and more create the conditions in which the atomic structure of cells of bodily complexes is that of the density of love. The mind/body/spirit complexes inhabiting these physical vehicles will be, and to some extent, are, those of whom you spoke and, as harvest is completed, the harvested entities of this planetary influence.

When I read this, I read that the preparation takes time, it requires specific bodies and minds to be able to make the shift into 4d. But this does not mean that the shift itself won't be instantaneous. I'm not a scholar of the Ra material like you, I think I know Wilcocks work better than the Ra material. So we're going to have to help each other a bit.

Wilcock makes a clear point that the Ra material never suggests a gradual shift from 3 to 4d. All points where it seems this way are slightly ambiguous. Meaning that if you come from one understanding you'll read one thing if you come from another understanding you will read another thing. This is the ambiguity I explained earlier. Quite likely no one truly understands precisely what Ra meant in the places here he had difficulty in translating into our words.

Now that I think of it, could Wilcock when he says shift mean what Ra means with harvest? I believe the harvest was supposedly instantaneous. Most processes in nature are a gradual building up of energy until the whole system falls back to a lower state of energy balance by going through a phase shift. Much like water remains water for a long time if you start cooling it but then suddenly phase shifts and then becomes stable again as you cool it further. It's true to say that the freezing process takes time but it's also somewhat true to say the actual freezing is semi instantaneous. If this is applicable to the 3d to 4d shift then both ways of saying it would be true and indicate this process.

If you do not graduate, you live out the rest of your life in Earth’s third-density time/space — what most people call the ‘astral plane’ — and your next life will be on another third-density planet, custom-built for everyone on Earth who will still need it after the end of Earth’s third-density cycle.

The author here implies that existence in t/s is almost identical to existence in s/t, and could occur in a way that is transparent to the entity. I would say the statement "you live out the rest of your life in Earth’s third-density time/space" is inconsistent with the Law of One in the following passages:

I find it unclear what Wilcock means here, the theory that you will be living in a world of your own creation where it potentially takes a very long time to discover the illusory nature is a recurring theme in many religions.. This is apparently also a natural part of death.

Though we're judging here the compatible to the Law of One not the compatibility to specific religions... Ra warns that it is difficult to describe what happens due to our limitations. But if we ignore that then it seems Wilcock is indeed inconsistent. I think I must conclude that this could very well be a real point depending

It seems clear to me, from this, that existence in time/space could not be confused with 3D space/time. Thus "living out their lives" which implies normalcy seems at odds with the above quote. Still, I suppose that one could argue that the cosmos chooses to create a s/t like environment in t/s and moves those not yet harvestable entities into it. This notion seems inconsistent with the following portion of Law of One:

Actually it's not the universe that does this, it's the individual. Much like a dream state in which we are often unable to realize that you're dreaming. The dream world is the astral. And there does not have to be a one on one mapping with 3d existence before it for it to be convincing to the individual.

The critical point here being that the purpose behind 3D is to sufficiently polarize along your chosen path to allow you to access intelligent infinity and thus prepare you to learn the lessons of love. If one cannot correct imbalances in t/s, then what would be the purpose of continuing to live out your 3D existence there? It would seem that the time would be wasted, and an instantaneous death would be far preferable to wasting time, if you will, (pun unintentionally intended), in a portion of t/s modified somehow to resemble s/t.

Thus, in this quote, I must conclude that the author is basing his statements on works that are at odds with the Law of One.

Actually this is speculation. The Law of One does not actually state this. It's your personal interpretations. While speculation has it's uses lets be careful in drawing conclusions from them...

Only recently have we discovered that apparently a small number of people — most likely those involved in secret government programs and leaning towards the negative path — do stay in "third-density space/time" — i.e. the physical Earth as it exists now — after 2012.

(On a personal note, I find the author's use of the "royal we" in many of these writings is both confusing and condescending. Sometimes "we" means "I" and sometimes "we" really means we. I believe that "we" means "I" in this case.)

I think it means we... Him and his discussion partners. For what it's worth I use we a lot to indicate all humans. But this is a matter of style, I concede that everyone is entitled to dislike David's style so we can focus on the meat of the matter.

Some of them are in underground bases and others stay on the surface of the Earth.

Again, not inconsistent with the Law of One. I would note that the concept of 3D entities existing on 4D Earth is entirely consistent with the Law of One, over time.

If however, the author is implying that 3D entities will coexist with early 4D positive entities on Earth, then here we have both an inconsistency and a conundrum wrt the Law of One. On the one hand, Ra indicates that in an early 4D positive Earth, there will be no 3D entities (indeed, Ra indicates that Earth's Third Density will be placed into "potentiation".

I think the idea is that if the solar system changes a lot people will be able to shield them from the initial effects by hiding in deep underground bases. This idea is not Law of One in origin, I think it's Dan Burisch though I am not 100% certain. As the earth is more and more permeated by the new energy the underground bases will eventually be reached. The analogy to freezing water would be in order. The surface of the earth will be affected by 4d vibrations before the core of the earth is affected. And if the vibrations are stopped by the earth. Then deep underground you're somewhat safe from them. However I doubt this safety will last more than a few years at most. So even that shift in cosmic terms is instantaneous.

I personally find this a weak argument... It might be true it might not be, mostly it seems the negative elite hopes it to be true but there is absolutely no point to mentioning it. Unless you have access to a cold war grade bunker the point is moot.

Burisch is mostly positive but gets his information with the mixed negative perceptions of the STS side. Their interpretations are not neccisarily accurate and I personally take them with a "But that's what you think"

As noted earlier, Ra also indicates that 4D beings will evolve from 3D beings, thus implying that there must be some overlap. This could be reasoned away in the Law of One by saying that those entities giving birth to the first 4D beings are dual activated 3D entities, which although they are truly 3D entities, they have already been harvested, and will be able to survive on the 4D Earth, or alternatively that Earth's Third Density body will not be placed into potentiation until after the last dual activated entity has transitioned. The author on the other hand, appears to resolve this by assuming that harvestable 3D positive entities "simultaneously transmute", as it were, into 4D positive entities. As noted in the quote above, I feel that this concept is inconsistent with the Law of One.

I understand that wilcock means that humanity already evolved to potentially ascend. The actual ascension is when those that evolved graduate, and those who did not fail to graduate.

For what it's worth, that is my assessment of the passage presented. I hope that it is of some value in the discussion.

I think you did well, we don't agree on all points but I now have a much clearer understanding in what ways Wilcock "violates" (another strong word) the original Law of One material... In my opinion the differences lie mostly in his attempt to integrate the Law of One material with other sources. Even if he succeeded (which we on this discussion have not established yet) these kind of friction points must exist where our understanding of the original material does not translate to his interpretations. This is not to say his understanding is invalid, it could be ours. I'm speaking objectively here. The truth is superpositioned on both sides of the fence. Ra made it clear that translating into human terminology is sometimes challenging even to him. He also conceded that in the past his interference in human affairs has not always panned out as he expected. So we must assume the possibility that our "literal" interpretation is biased in ways he did not intend or expect.

I have no problems with this view or with drawing different conclusions from it, our diversity is part of our strength.

If the differences are no more then light differences in interpretation then I would call it ambiguity and conclude that the truth is somewhere in the middle.


As to the point of death. Perhaps the problem here lies in the fact that you can look at death from two angles. If you take it to mean that you cease to exist on a 3d level then clearly ascension requires death. If you take it to mean that we have the experience of dying then this does not have to be true. An instantaneous shift from 3d into 4d which he compared to stepping through a stargate is probably not comparable to a death experience. But what do I know, my heart is beating, I am not an authority on death.

The ambiguity of language plays a role once again.

[3D Sunset]

Hello Ali, it is good to hear from you. Thanks for engaging in the discussion. I hear your points, and where we diverge, I am comfortable with that. I would like to address a couple of areas where I perceive misunderstandings, however.

I'm not a scholar of the Ra material like you

One big difference between DW and myself with respect to the Law of One, is that I do not consider myself a scholar of the Law of One. I am merely a humble student of the Law of One, and a humble servant to those interested in my interpretations thereof. I truly have no dog in this fight, as they say here in the South, and am perfectly content if no one agrees with my perspective. I have done my service simply by sharing my perspective.

The critical point here being that the purpose behind 3D is to sufficiently polarize along your chosen path to allow you to access intelligent infinity and thus prepare you to learn the lessons of love. If one cannot correct imbalances in t/s, then what would be the purpose of continuing to live out your 3D existence there? It would seem that the time would be wasted, and an instantaneous death would be far preferable to wasting time, if you will, (pun unintentionally intended), in a portion of t/s modified somehow to resemble s/t.

Thus, in this quote, I must conclude that the author is basing his statements on works that are at odds with the Law of One.

Actually this is speculation. The Law of One does not actually state this. It's your personal interpretations. While speculation has it's uses lets be careful in drawing conclusions from them...

I'm not sure what point you're taking exception with, please clarify. The Law of One certainly states that the purpose of 3D is to choose a path and polarize sufficiently along that path so that one may continue their lessons in 4D. Also, per the quote I referenced, such strengthening of polarization cannot happen in t/s, only in s/t. Thus I say that his statement is contrary to the Law of One in that the polarization process is the vital reason for 3D existence, and if such polarization cannot happen in t/s, then it is impossible to "live out your normal life in t/s", since living out your normal life must need include the ability to increase polarity. This also, IMHO, undermines any argument that people that are moved into 3D t/s because they are not harvestable, may yet graduate.

I grant that the later discussion as to efficiency of the use of time and energy is speculation but it is also independent of my central point stated above.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my material,

3D Sunset

[Monica]

Ra: I am Ra. This is partially correct. To be corrected is the concept of the creation of green-ray density bodily complexes. This creation will be gradual and will take place beginning with your third-density type of physical vehicle and, through the means of bisexual reproduction, become by evolutionary processes, the fourth-density body complexes.

Questioner: Then are these entities of whom we have spoken, the third density harvestable who have been transferred, the ones who then will, by bisexual reproduction, create the fourth-density complexes that are necessary?

Ra: I am Ra. The influxes of true color green energy complexes will more and more create the conditions in which the atomic structure of cells of bodily complexes is that of the density of love. The mind/body/spirit complexes inhabiting these physical vehicles will be, and to some extent, are, those of whom you spoke and, as harvest is completed, the harvested entities of this planetary influence.

When I read this, I read that the preparation takes time, it requires specific bodies and minds to be able to make the shift into 4d. But this does not mean that the shift itself won't be instantaneous. I'm not a scholar of the Ra material like you, I think I know Wilcocks work better than the Ra material. So we're going to have to help each other a bit.

Wilcock makes a clear point that the Ra material never suggests a gradual shift from 3 to 4d. All points where it seems this way are slightly ambiguous. Meaning that if you come from one understanding you'll read one thing if you come from another understanding you will read another thing. This is the ambiguity I explained earlier. Quite likely no one truly understands precisely what Ra meant in the places here he had difficulty in translating into our words.

I agree that much of the Law of One is subject to interpretation. However, imho, this is not one of them:

Questioner: Then what will be the time of transition on this planet from third to fourth-density?

Ra: I am Ra. This is difficult to estimate due to the uncharacteristic anomalies of this transition. There are at this space/time nexus beings incarnate which have begun fourth-density work. However, the third-density climate of planetary consciousness is retarding the process.

At this particular nexus the possibility/probability vortices indicate somewhere between 100 and 700 of your years as transition period. This cannot be accurate due to the volatility of your peoples at this space/time.

This is about as clear as anyone could get. While the length of the transition is subject to 'our volatility' there doesn't seem to be any question as to whether there will be a transition at all. The only question is how long will the transition be? 100 years? 400 years?

2 seconds?

I just don't see Ra being that far off, or of the possibility/probability vortices changing that much...changing from a range measured in hundreds of years, to a range measured in seconds, which is what an 'instantaneous' shift would entail.

Unless, of course, our planet polarized towards harmony in a single moment of inspiration!

I still have hope, but, as Ra said, it's not probable...though ever possible.

But to state such a remote possibility as a factual reality is, imo, unfounded.

Is it in the realm of possibility? Yes. Is it in the realm of probability? No.

Why, then, speak of it as though it were a done deal, a given, a future set in stone?

Not even Ra has ever, ever stated with certainty the time or the method anything will happen in our future.

At any rate, you say, "Wilcock makes a clear point that the Ra material never suggests a gradual shift from 3 to 4d" is false. DW does acknowledge this one single reference:

from http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?op...&Itemid=30

HOW FAST WILL WE TRANSITION INTO FOURTH DENSITY?

Questioner: Then what will be the time of transition on this planet from third to fourth-density?

Ra: I am Ra. This is difficult to estimate due to the uncharacteristic anomalies of this transition. There are at this space/time nexus beings incarnate which have begun fourth-density work. However, the third-density climate of planetary consciousness is retarding the process.

At this particular nexus the possibility/probability vortices indicate somewhere between 100 and 700 of your years as transition period. This cannot be accurate due to the volatility of your peoples at this space/time.


DW: Here is the one and ONLY 'gradualist' quote in the entire Law of One series. You just read the ONE quote that has created the WHOLE PROBLEM everyone's arguing about. Here we're taking it in its FULL context, NOT as a separate and isolated quote to be judged alone.

Firstly, DW is mistaken that it's the ONLY 'gradualist' quote, as you can see from the quote at the top of this post (repeated here for convenience and emphasis):

Questioner: I will make this statement and have you correct me. What we have is, as our planet is spiraled by the spiraling action of the entire major galaxy and our planetary system spirals into the new position, the fourth density vibrations becoming more and more pronounced. These atomic core vibrations begin to create, more and more completely, the fourth density sphere and the fourth-density bodily complexes for inhabitation of that sphere. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is partially correct. To be corrected is the concept of the creation of green-ray density bodily complexes. This creation will be gradual and will take place beginning with your third-density type of physical vehicle and, through the means of bisexual reproduction, become by evolutionary processes, the fourth-density body complexes.


Notice that Ra made the correction regarding the transition of US to 4D. Our transition, ie. the transition of the souls as opposed to the transition of the planet, will be gradual.

Now, if the transition of the planet were also gradual, would Ra have mentioned that? Which leads me to believe that, as mentioned elsewhere by Ra, 4D Earth already exists...the difference is that we humans have to catch up so we can attune to that 'layer' of the multi-layered Earth reality...via a natural, gradual, evolutionary process.

Which brings us to your next point:

Now that I think of it, could Wilcock when he says shift mean what Ra means with harvest? I believe the harvest was supposedly instantaneous. Most processes in nature are a gradual building up of energy until the whole system falls back to a lower state of energy balance by going through a phase shift. Much like water remains water for a long time if you start cooling it but then suddenly phase shifts and then becomes stable again as you cool it further. It's true to say that the freezing process takes time but it's also somewhat true to say the actual freezing is semi instantaneous. If this is applicable to the 3d to 4d shift then both ways of saying it would be true and indicate this process.

Ra is clearly talking about US, as in how we, the inhabitants of Earth, will transition to 4D bodies. This is indeed a separate and distinct process from Earth going 4D.

As quoted earlier in this thread, this planet already has 7 levels of reality...4D is already activated...so how could Ra be referring to Earth's transition?

It seems to me that Ra is referring the Harvest of 3D souls into 4D...Aside from that remote possibility of our entire planet harmonizing in an instant, how could we all be harvested at the same time, when there are clearly so many souls still on the fence or stuck in the muck?

At any rate, while other quotes may indeed be subject to interpretation, I just don't see how anyone could so casually disregard this quote as though it were an inconvenience: between 100 and 700 of your years as transition period.

[Quantum]

Clearly as scholars of the the Law of One, we are interested in expanding our understanding of the Law of One to areas beyond what is covered therein. This is both the nature of scientific inquiry and the nature of humans. You may choose to live only within the material specifically included in the works of Ra when you use its lexicon, I choose not to. I believe that this is consistent with both societal norms regarding the expansion of the use of words once they have entered a language, and with the scientific process.

As always, excellent points dear 3D. I might question however the premise that the Ra vernacular has entered into any language whatsoever? I would suggest rather that it is in fact reserved to it's own, i.e. the LOO, and this only to the students or casual reader of the LOO. Utilizing this vernacular then in combination with the 'scientific process' is a bit of a non sequitur in as much as, once again, the premise to conclusion do not fit? But your point is nonetheless taken. I additionally question the seeming connection you attempt to pose as to 'the nature of scientific inquiry' as regards anything considered 'esoteric' in nature which by definition is the antithesis of scientific inquiry. It is a faith statement on my part, to be sure, when I propose that nothing spiritual will ever be resolved by scientific inquiry or study in as much as it would then remove the veil of unknowingness in 3D. Ain't gonna happen, even if we do Grok Ra or speak in the LOO'atian vernacular (i.e. 3D, 4D, 5D, etc, STO/STS etc).

I would also disagree that that any information outside that which is covered in the Law of One is transitory by nature. For example, Ra indicates that the works of Dewey B. Larson were "correct as far as they went". Thus, one would conclude that the Reciprocal System of Theories is consistent with the Law of One.

Exactly so, this in as much as the very example you use is in fact endorsed, approved, and affirmed by the Ra Material, i.e., it's in the LOO? It is interesting that this would be the very one example made, only so much as it is indeed one of the few non-Ra sources mentioned by Ra. I also remember that the Ohasape Material was endorsed by the Confederation. Again, however, your point is well taken though.

Lets us then define what Ra meant as transitory so that we might have a clearer understanding of the word: 'Transient: a function that tends to zero as the independent variable tends to infinity'. Again, one must infer what Ra meant by transient as it has many other definitions, i.e. not lasting, enduring, or permanent. But I think it is safe to infer that when Ra used the word 'transient' that they were making reference to a something that is fleeting, "as though unimportant, or imperceptible, or even perhaps not worth perceiving" (see definitions as well as antonyms). With this in mind, Dewey Larson's work was hardly transient? Don Elkins was attempting to understand the principles spoken to by Ra through the Dewey Larson vernacular. This was relevant to further understand the Ra teachings.

Here then comes an interesting point I think that may be made: Spiritual Study is solely for the purpose of the soul, the further unfoldment of the spirit, or the further evolution of consciousness. There is nothing else. I dare say, all else beyond this teaching point did Ra attempt to communicate as almost not worth perceiving, or as fleeting, or as unimportant, all when speaking to the ineffable as the message. Utilizing then the LOO for the transient, as opposed to it's antithesis (to mean the ineffable) is ludicrous, if not sad, disheartening, and even desecrating. It is in this context then that when speaking to, or through, or from the LOO out of one corner of one's mouth while blending it from the other with the 'trivia of the transient' in posts, radio spots, articles, and conversations as regards ET technology bringing down Trade Towers, or arguing vehemently for a Spontaneous Shift to the point that Wilcock is "frankly getting tired of repeating himself", verses arguing for the NWO, and a host of so many other transient topics, that the LOO (upper case) begins to become the (loo - lower case). This is indeed what Ra seemingly admonished by suggesting that if the transient becomes a mainstay of topic, or pursued, that the connection would then be disturbed if not broken. Here now may come a shock and awe statement for some: I suggest that this is in fact the largest part of exactly where Wilcock lives and breaths professionally, and what he in fact exactly does as his main exercise, and does so to a far larger extent than he does to speaking of the LOO itself. This then brings up a secondary consideration in as much as if the L/L group was repeatedly admonished not to pursue the transient as a mainstay lest the connection be broken, then how might one assume that this admonition is presumably suspended in Wilocok's case and yet that he nonetheless claims to make a connection with Ra? Tell me that this is not a consideration that one is not forced to ask, unless one is willing to assume that somehow he has superseded the narrow band requirement?

In other words, the LOO is almost more used as a reference source and reference point to indeed support the transient, prop it up, and proliferate it. Would anyone reasonably disagree with this assertion? Can one reasonably argue against this assertion? Is it not all too self-evident? And even if one were to suggest that he only does so to the extent of 50%, nay even only 30%, do I hear 25%(?), would it change the point? I challenge anyone to listen to any one of his radio spots and then share that one came away from such an interview either more educated on the LOO as a teaching, or more elevated as to the beauty of life and what it holds for the seeker. I challenge anyone to even share that he speaks more primarily to the Seeker than he does to the Conspiratorialist.

And having put this out there, may one still claim the scholarly mantle when one does exactly what the LOO 'suggests' one not do?

One must ask if this is even consistent?

The LOO is certainly not to be revered, worshiped, or be turned into a religion, but is it not worth being respected for what it suggests, as opposed to moreover simply what it teaches? Perhaps in my attempts to elucidate my sentiments I am failing to share what I see as evidentiary. It seems this point is missed?

Dewey Larson therefore is not transient. Trade Towers and alien technology facilitating them coming down by the illuminati as opposed to the NWO, as opposed to the Rothchild's, as opposed to the Bilderburgers, as opposed to the Templars, as opposed the Masons (and reasonably asking with all due respect: how in god's name would he know anyway, and why would I believe him, and why would anybody?) and all this against the backdrop of the LOO, as regards the Harvest, as regards 3D to 6D and beyond, as regards STS vs STO, as the aforementioned groups are without question STS, is simply outrageously contradictory to the LOO.

By this one simple point alone above, I question it all, as much as him, if not simply willingly honor the LOO by its suggestion. Have I crossed a line, for some, or perhaps made a point worth considering for more? The LOO is better than this. We as serious students of the LOO are better than this. Were he as serious of a scholar as he claims then he too would be better than this. This is Comic Book, X-File/Cigarette Man, Whistle blowing, Sci-Fi Channel literary fare, that whether true or not, is transitory, and as implied, desecrating to the higher vibratory intended information. Is this not so? I am not a religious man. But I do consider myself a spiritual man. I take the LOO seriously. I believe it matters. I believe we all do, otherwise we would not be here attempting to dig deeper. If then I am serious, I would suggest that going to the depths that the author in question does is in fact profane to the literature as much as the suggestion, lending itself the utilization of consecrated knowledge for the unconsecrated.Words such as: consecrate, sanctify, venerate, and so many more, have I believe, a vibratory effect that even Ra utilized. If one is sensitive to these words, as to assume that they intone religious principles alone, then consider another example of the definition of the word consecrate "to devote or dedicate to some purpose: a life consecrated to science".

I am aware that I am asking hard hitting, direct, but nonetheless honest, if not difficult questions as I search myself and the contradictions that to me seem self evident. May one dedicate the larger part of one's life to the transient, while professing oneself as a scholar to the very material that admonishes this as a primary pursuit? It is contradictory. It just is. It seems incongruous to the claim.

This is clearly more an observation than it is to the material facts, but is nonetheless I think as valid and material of a question.


Q

[Ali Quadir]

Questioner: Then what will be the time of transition on this planet from third to fourth-density?

Ra: I am Ra. This is difficult to estimate due to the uncharacteristic anomalies of this transition. There are at this space/time nexus beings incarnate which have begun fourth-density work. However, the third-density climate of planetary consciousness is retarding the process.

At this particular nexus the possibility/probability vortices indicate somewhere between 100 and 700 of your years as transition period. This cannot be accurate due to the volatility of your peoples at this space/time.

This is about as clear as anyone could get. While the length of the transition is subject to 'our volatility' there doesn't seem to be any question as to whether there will be a transition at all. The only question is how long will the transition be? 100 years? 400 years?

2 seconds?

Here's Wilcocks full quote. Thank you for the reference I did not have to look this one up

HOW FAST WILL WE TRANSITION INTO FOURTH DENSITY?

If it were to happen ten times faster than before, that's a target window of 135 years. That's actually not a bad guess based on the real material in the text. Let's read Don's question and get the answer:

Questioner: Then what will be the time of transition on this planet from third to fourth-density?

Ra: I am Ra. This is difficult to estimate due to the uncharacteristic anomalies of this transition. There are at this space/time nexus beings incarnate which have begun fourth-density work. However, the third-density climate of planetary consciousness is retarding the process.

At this particular nexus the possibility/probability vortices indicate somewhere between 100 and 700 of your years as transition period. This cannot be accurate due to the volatility of your peoples at this space/time.


DW: Here is the one and ONLY 'gradualist' quote in the entire Law of One series. You just read the ONE quote that has created the WHOLE PROBLEM everyone's arguing about. Here we're taking it in its FULL context, NOT as a separate and isolated quote to be judged alone.

We will have to keep integrating what we learn as we go along. That's part of what makes the Law of One a difficult study. It's a lot to float in your brain, but let's keep going from where we were.

As we're about to see, this 100-700 year period does not start counting as of the time of the Law of One material… it begins in 1936. Trip out on this for a minute. We entered into a whole different structure of reality as we know it, beginning in 1936.

Ever since then, the "rules" have changed- we now create our own reality, where "thoughts become things"!

As you can see, Wilcock calls the process of change about 700 years. Like the process of freezing water can take hours. But the actual freezing moment is relatively instantaneous.

I just don't see Ra being that far off, or of the possibility/probability vortices changing that much...changing from a range measured in hundreds of years, to a range measured in seconds, which is what an 'instantaneous' shift would entail.

There's two processes to a shift. Wilcock clearly acknowledges this. There is the process which can take years or centuries. And the actual shifting moment where everything instantaneously changes.

At any rate, you say, "Wilcock makes a clear point that the Ra material never suggests a gradual shift from 3 to 4d" is false. DW does acknowledge this one single reference:

And you give another situation that fits well with the freezing water analogy.

Now, if the transition of the planet were also gradual, would Ra have mentioned that? Which leads me to believe that, as mentioned elsewhere by Ra, 4D Earth already exists...the difference is that we humans have to catch up so we can attune to that 'layer' of the multi-layered Earth reality...via a natural, gradual, evolutionary process.

I agree with this notion. However, this still does not mean that the actual shift is not instantaneous. Evolution in real life is not a gradual process. It's a building up to a tipping point, then a period of very rapid explosive sometimes within one generation changes. This is really cutting edge, you need to read the biologists theories in the last few years, not decades. Certainly Darwin had no clue.

It seems to me that Ra is referring the Harvest of 3D souls into 4D...Aside from that remote possibility of our entire planet harmonizing in an instant, how could we all be harvested at the same time, when there are clearly so many souls still on the fence or stuck in the muck?

The fact that we don't know the answer doesn't mean much But it probably has to do with critical mass being reached. The presence of a master always has an energetic effect on the people around them. So what if you're close, and your brother mother and best friend have recently become masters? On your own this might require years. But with them around the spark could just jump over. I've experienced this effect first hand. And I've seen some of the crazy things that can happen if the master decides to play with this effect for fun and education.

Basically we seem to see David do two things, he acknowledges the gradual shift and advocates his beliefs in the instantaneous 2012 moment. All while he himself seems absolutely unhindered by the apparent contradictions in this. It's a false dichotomy in his view apparently.

Again, I'm not the expert, I'm just stating here how I interpreted his words. Basically the earth has been moving into this region of the milky way for a number of decades now. This means the vibratory level of the earth and it's inhabitants is rising slowly and at the moment more rapidly this is the transition period that Ra says will take a long time. And we see rapid changes in mankind in this period. This period has been the start of the indigo and starchild influx. And of various social revolutions, including the rise of the internet. At a certain point the energy level gets to a point where the dynamic chaotic self regulating system that is the humans on earth will undergo what is effectively a phase shift into 4d.

An air plane on the runway requires a few minutes to take off. But the moment where it transitions from touching the ground to not touching is instantaneous. This analogy is not perfect the freezing water is physiologically more accurate. But I hope you see my point.


It seems to me that to round trip this we'd need to find a quote where Ra seems to imply an instantaneous shift. I think we've already discussed that.

Questioner: Starting then, forty-five years ago, and taking the entire increase in vibration that we will experience in this density change, approximately what percentage of the way through this increase of vibration are we right now?

Ra: I am Ra. The vibratory nature of your environment is true color, green. This is at this time heavily over-woven with the orange ray of planetary consciousness. However, the nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discrete placement of vibratory level.

Quanta and discrete placement are terms we know for example from the "orbits" of electrons in the atom. Bascially there is only a number of possible positions and shifts between them will be instantaneous.

[3D Sunset]

This is clearly more an observation than it is to the material facts, but is nonetheless I think as valid and material of a question.

Hello again dear friend. I quoted only your last line for the purpose of conserving electrons and perhaps a few Kilobytes of storage on the Bring4th servers, but please consider this a response to post intoto.

I agree wholeheartedly that DW spends an inordinate (and potentially even spiritually unhealthy) amount of time investigating, documenting and discussing the transitory and truly unimportant aspects of humanity's past, present, and future.

I would simply make two points as to why I am content to turn a blind eye to this behavior:

1. Don Elkins along with Carla and Jim all discussed the merits and concerns about including any transitory material in the Law of One publications. But in spite of their serious misgivings about including such material, they proceeded to include a significant amount of it, especially in Book 1. They did this for the specific purpose of making the material more interesting to their intended audience. Don even discussed this point specifically with Ra on at least two occasions, and Ra's response was that his service was to provide the information to Don with as little distortion as possible. He would not make recommendations as to how it should be edited, packaged, presented, or distributed to the public at large. These decisions were part of the trio's service, and had to be done according to their free will and inner motivations.

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

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

Although I find much of DW's work uninteresting to me now, I would hasten to point out that it was through some of his transitory discussions that I found him and ultimately the Law of One. I also readily admit that the transitory material within the Law of One was quite interesting to me on my first few readings of the Law of One, and it truly helped me see how to integrate the Law of One with physical reality and my other esoteric knowledge. Now, I find that I skip past such material, and hasten to find my way back to "the meat".

2. Given #1 above, I think that DW feels that one of his major purposes in this incarnation is to aid in the awakening of Wanderers that can aid the planet and humanity toward as bountiful a harvest as is possible. If he feels that transitory material is necessary to accomplish this, then this is a Free Will choice of how he feels he can best serve the process. I have no problem with that. I similarly have full confidence that many, if not most, awakened wanderers will, of their free will, feel the pull to explore the LOO for themselves and reach the same conclusion that you and I both have. That being the fact that DW's service for us is done. We have spiritually outgrown his material. Once awakened, Wanderers cannot return to sleep. They respond to the call to service, as they each best see fit. But note that DW's service was already totally successful, for as Ra said, if the material reaches a single person due to efforts to serve, then the effort was successful, for all are One. It reached me, therefore, DW is a resounding success.

I am similarly supportive of your call to serve by being as the yin, at it were, to DWs yang. I think that by having these discussions we can aid wanderers that are so inclined, to "transcend the transitory" and focus on the profound spiritual aspects of the Law of One. Thus, although I do not wish to change or influence anything about DW's work, I do see a valuable opportunity to serve in presenting opposing views based upon interpretation of the Law of One.

As an aside, I would like to acknowledge some of DWs recent (within the past year) work as being particularly non-transitory. That being his series of discussions with Larry Seyer which were entitled "There is only one of us here." I found it quite spiritually fulfilling much like a sermon is received by those that attend organized religious services. Although I learned nothing new, it was a refreshing take on life's purpose and did a fine job juxtaposing LOO with ACIM (a book which I've owned for over 20 years, but never was able to use for more than a cure for insomnia).

Love and Light,

3D Sunset

[Monica]

As you can see, Wilcock calls the process of change about 700 years. Like the process of freezing water can take hours. But the actual freezing moment is relatively instantaneous.

I don't buy into the idea of "the transition started in 1936 so 73 years of it have already passed" because it doesn't seem logical that Ra would have spoken of an upcoming transitional period of at least 100 years, if 3/4 of those years had already passed. That just doesn't sound the least bit logical to me.

In my understanding of Ra's words, it seems pretty clear that Ra was speaking of a transition that was just beginning at the time of the channeling. The context of the statement

At this particular nexus the possibility/probability vortices indicate somewhere between 100 and 700 of your years as transition period

...was in reference to the future, not the past. Why would Ra consult the possibility/probability vortices if referring to the past?

I understand DW's freezing analogy, and I agree that it makes sense to the individual soul, and maybe even to 4D Earth, but the part I disagree with is that each individual soul and the Earth would all hit that freezing point simultaneously. This just completely contradicts Ra's words about transition and the evolutionary process of Earth inhabitants incarnating into 4D bodies.

[Quantum]

Wilcock goes on to offer a Ra quote using the word "discrete" so as to drive his point home. While discrete may mean separate and distinct as he suggests, it is more universally utilized as meaning circumspection, or of a delicate nature, discrete – adjective -modestly unobtrusive; unostentatious, e.g.: a discreet, finely wrought gold necklace.

Ra: However, the nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discrete placement of vibratory level.

Wilcock: DISCRETE PLACEMENT. Discrete means "separate and distinct." A quantum leap. They also say that there is a "boundary" that we move over. When is the boundary? 2011-2013.

DISCRETE MEANS 'SPONTANEOUS'
Guess what… even before all the other supporting quotes about 3D/4D electrical incompatibility, what you've just read about the photon shifting across a "discrete boundary" is "proof positive", within the Law of One physics, that this is a spontaneous event.

Here is the definition of discrete:
discrete - 5 dictionary results
dis⋅crete
  /dɪˈskrit/
–adjective
1. apart or detached from others; separate; distinct: six discrete parts.
2. consisting of or characterized by distinct or individual parts; discontinuous.
3. Mathematics.
a. (of a topology or topological space) having the property that every subset is an open set.
b. defined only for an isolated set of points: a discrete variable.
c. using only arithmetic and algebra; not involving calculus: discrete methods.

Being that the homonyms discrete and discreet sound alike but have different meanings, and being that Carla's channeling was recorded on a tape recorder, just how do any of us know which meaning Ra intended?

Did Carla, upon waking from her trance, tell Don, "Ra meant d-i-s-c-r-e-t-e, not d-i-s-c-r-e-e-t"...?

Being that she didn't even remember what had been said, um, no, I don't think she did that. So, the word got transcribed according to the inclination (guess) of the transcriber.

Just this one single word, with 2 meanings, can totally change the meaning of that passage.

Quite a brilliant piece of logic, deduction, and awareness of nuance Monica! How extremely subtle, and sublime, if not "discreet", thus rendering the meanings "discretely" as totally different in meanings.(Pardon the pun of utilizing both words in one sentence).

I did not want this small gem of a point you uncovered to be lost Monica. I too made the same mistake in the terms of the word. The point is in fact so subtle that it bears repeating, in as much as it renders an entirely different meaning to the words of Ra as anything but subtle. The distinctions become bluntly different. The discreet meaning Ra may have stated, verses the discrete meaning, according to Wilcock's interpretation that he stakes everything on as his PROOF POSITIVE, renders the interpretation as vastly distinct, one from the other.

1. Ra: However, the nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discrete placement of vibratory level.

2. Ra: However, the nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discreet placement of vibratory level.

Interpretation one means a separate boundary, distinct and apart.
Interpretation two means a delicate boundary, as though almost imperceptible.

These are no small distinctions in as much as number two is not spontaneous. Wilcock stakes everything on number one as his grand finale as though a Proof Positive final argument, and one he is tired of repeating himself in. Interpretation two, if Ra meant discreet, in fact would support a gradual, as in a gradualist transition, in as much as discreet is defined as: fine, delicate, as though almost imperceptible.

The question remains that if an author speaks so authoritatively, going so far as to suggest that he is "tired of repeating himself", and offers this as his finale for his position by throwing his "all on the table", as it were, as the weightiest and best argument for his position as the "tell all" to the argument, it rather ends up more as a contradiction to his interpretation than as the proof or answer he hoped for, if not a spectacular belly flop. Thus by the mere subtle difference of but one single word, and moreover which word Ra meant, it renders Wilcock's entire premise for a proof positive conclusion as moot.

Here Ali, is a perfectly splendid example of the ambiguity you have offered as a thought that we rightly consider. As asked in the post previously, is the ambiguity coming from the reader's interpretation, or from the authors? If the author is so openly adamant and confident of his position as to stake out his position on such ambiguities, how then may this be interpreted as a scholarly argument, much less as a definitive conclusion? It leaves his assertion in ambiguity, as much as it does to his authority or to "his truth" as proof positive. At least this much one must concede to, given that two vastly contradictory positions may not occupy the same space. The author's interpretation is in question, and not slightly so.

Is it innocent? The answer is self evident. Of course it is. But that is hardly what is at issue. It is not a question of an honest mistake as much as it is a question to his scholarly (profound knowledge to a specific subject) authority that he repeatedly asserts. Wilcock may have blunderingly offered the very best explanation for a Gradualist Position ever imaginable as a Proof Positive assertion that the Harvest is a fine delicate almost imperceptible transition.

The interpretation remains a mystery. His authority does not.

Q

[Monica]

Q, your last couple of posts had some very profound elements.

Hey didn't that happen with the Egyptians?

[Ali Quadir]

Here Ali, is a perfectly splendid example of the ambiguity you have offered as a thought that we rightly consider. As asked in the post previously, is the ambiguity coming from the reader's interpretation, or from the authors? If the author is so openly adamant and confident of his position as to stake out his position on such ambiguities, how then may this be interpreted as a scholarly argument, much less as a definitive conclusion? It leaves his assertion in ambiguity, as much as it does to his authority or to "his truth" as proof positive. At least this much one must concede to, given that two vastly contradictory positions may not occupy the same space. The author's interpretation is in question, and not slightly so.

Excelent The ambiguity was understood.. I am most pleased and satisfied.

However, in this case he is not staking his reputation on one of Ra's ambiguous statements. He's staking it on a very clear statement. Your suggestion that this is ambiguous is a huge exaggeration as I will show.

Wilcock may have blunderingly offered the very best explanation for a Gradualist Position ever imaginable as a Proof Positive assertion that the Harvest is a fine delicate almost imperceptible transition.

I'm not at all clear on the logic you used to deduce this. But lets entertain the notion... If Ra meant discreet, then his other words must reflect this. The word was not used in a vacuum...

Oh wait... Quanta the essence of discrete...
1. Ra: However, the nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discrete placement of vibratory level.
2. Ra: However, the nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discreet placement of vibratory level.
The first sentence is physical truth as our scientists know.
The second sentence would be nonsensical according to our scientists.

It is not the nature of quanta to be discreet. It is their nature to be discrete. Ask any physicist.

This proves that the original spelling is correct and we should not change this spelling just because we dislike the meaning of the original word.

The meaning of "Movement over the boundary" is an exact analogy again with what we mean in quantum physics when we say a quantum is a discrete "thing".

What would Ra have meant? The word discrete that was written down in the session? And that is contextually accurate? Or the word discreet, which is contextually inaccurate, which was not written down in the actual session? And which has only been suggested here and now in an attempt to defend a position that does not really seem to come up in Ra's words. But could be explained by misunderstandings over the difference between instantaneous harvest and the longer process of transitioning into 4d.

"However, the nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discrete placement of vibratory level."
The movement over the boundary is discrete. This is the nature of quanta. Ra explains in the same session 40 that the densities are quanta!

Questioner: Thank you. I was also wondering if the first-density corresponded somehow to the color red, the second to the color orange, the third to the color yellow and so on through the densities corresponding to the colors in perhaps a way so that the basic vibration which forms the photon that forms the core of all atomic particles would have a relationship to the color in the density and that that vibration would step up for second, third, and fourth-density corresponding to the increase in the vibration of the colors. Is any of this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is more correct than you have stated. Firstly, you are correct in positing a quantum, if you will, as the nature of each density and further correct in assuming that these quanta may be seen to be of vibratory natures corresponding to color as you grasp this word. However, it is also true, as you have suspected but not asked, that each density is of the metaphysical characteristic complex of its ray. Thus in first-density the red ray is the foundation for all that is to come. In second density the orange ray is that of movement and growth of the individual, this ray striving towards the yellow ray of self-conscious manifestations of a social nature as well as individual; third-density being the equivalent, and so forth, each density being primarily its ray plus the attractions of the following ray pulling it forward in evolution and to some extent coloring or shading the chief color of that density.

Ra himself is stating clearly and unambigously that the transfer must be instantaneous. Quanta are discrete in the method they move over their boundaries. Densities are quanta in nature. Ergo by simple application of hypothetical syllogism we discover that Densities must be discrete and change from one into the other not gradually, but instantaneously.

Ra is literally stating this, and I see no room for ambiguity. The discrete vs discreet suggestion is really just speculation that is contraindicated by Ra's own choice of words in the same sentence.

So Ra has unambiguously stated the instantaneous position and this proves that the Harvest is a discrete movement of quanta over a boundary. It cannot be discreet without contradicting Ra.

This does not mean there is not a period of change! As we've seen before in the freezing of water example I keep giving. It takes a long time to freeze water, but the actual freezing is pretty much instantaneous.

Again this is what Wilcock has been saying for years now, and I see this clearly reflected in the words chosen by Ra.

In Session 17:

Questioner: Am I to understand that the harvest will occur in the year 2,011, or will it be spread?

Ra: I am Ra. This is an approximation. We have stated we have difficulty with your time/space. This is an appropriate probable/possible time/space nexus for harvest. Those who are not in incarnation at this time will be included in the harvest.

A nexus is a connecting point. Ra basically states here that the harvest is possible in 2011. If harvest really takes 700 years then it could never be in 2011. Not even if we take into account Ra's difficulty in dealing with human time...

I cannot conclude that Wilcock is mistaking. In fact the evidence provided by the gradualist side in this case seems to me to clearly support the instantaneous side much more. You guys actually needed to suggest spelling errors and ignore context to make this case.

Perhaps we should look for another area where Wilcock potentially violates the original material. Because I very much doubt this is it. Wilcocks statements in this regard are supported by Ra. But there might still be other areas where he is wrong.

Unless someone quotes a passage that clearly and unambiguously supports the gradualist position I think the instantaneous position right now is the most likely candidate for what Ra meant.

[3D Sunset]

When DW originally published his tenet on gradual vs. instantaneous shift, I read it with skeptical excitement. You see, I really kind of like the idea of an instantaneous ascension, with all the fanfare and emotion involved in finally reaching the goal line in unity with a host of others... wow what an image, the ultimate victory celebration. Unfortunately, the more I read, the more I saw him slanting his interpretations of the Law of One to bolster his case, rather than accepting them on face value or in some cases, contorting his interpretations so that they fit together into his desired framework. Whereas I will admit that his model is feasible, it impresses me as is far from likely . In scientific terms, it is similar to saying that many of his interpretations did not, in my opinion, pass Occam's razor.

I would now like to share DWs interpretation that ultimately caused me to quit reading his treatise, and I have not looked at it since until we started discussing it on this website.

A GENERATION OF 2D IS 900 YEARS

Now when we gate back into our previous excerpt from Session 40, Don again brings this figure of a generation and a half up. Then Ra further clarifies. Check it out:

http://wiki.lawofone.info/index.php/Ra_Session_40


Questioner: How long was the time of transition on this planet between second and third-density? A generation and a half I believe. Is that correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct, the time measured in your years being approximately 1,350.


DW: Interesting. This means that a "generation" of second density is 900 years of our time.



TIME HAS SPED UP — POSSIBLY 100 TIMES FASTER

Are you paying attention? This strongly implies that time as we know it has DRAMATICALLY sped up between second and third-density. We already know that in third-density the average animal's life is probably 9 years at best.

Ra secretly has slipped in the fact that time started going at least 100 times faster in 3D than it was in 2D!

This means that the actual RATE at which a creature lives out its life increased by 100 times. This is consistent with other reports I've seen of the variability of time.

Therefore, such a speeding-up should happen again when we go into 4D — but if our time is going faster now than it was before, the time period should be a lot less than 1350 years.



HOW FAST WILL WE TRANSITION INTO FOURTH DENSITY?

If it were to happen ten times faster than before, that's a target window of 135 years. That's actually not a bad guess based on the real material in the text. Let's read Don's question and get the answer:

Questioner: Then what will be the time of transition on this planet from third to fourth-density?

Ra: I am Ra. This is difficult to estimate due to the uncharacteristic anomalies of this transition. There are at this space/time nexus beings incarnate which have begun fourth-density work. However, the third-density climate of planetary consciousness is retarding the process.

At this particular nexus the possibility/probability vortices indicate somewhere between 100 and 700 of your years as transition period. This cannot be accurate due to the volatility of your peoples at this space/time.


DW: Here is the one and ONLY 'gradualist' quote in the entire Law of One series. You just read the ONE quote that has created the WHOLE PROBLEM everyone's arguing about. Here we're taking it in its FULL context, NOT as a separate and isolated quote to be judged alone.

We will have to keep integrating what we learn as we go along. That's part of what makes the Law of One a difficult study. It's a lot to float in your brain, but let's keep going from where we were.

As we're about to see, this 100-700 year period does not start counting as of the time of the Law of One material… it begins in 1936. Trip out on this for a minute. We entered into a whole different structure of reality as we know it, beginning in 1936

Now consider the following quote:

Questioner: Thank you. As soon as the third-density started 75,000 years ago and we have incarnate third-density entities, what was the average human life span at that time?

Ra: I am Ra. At the beginning of this particular portion of your space/time continuum the average life span was approximately nine hundred of your years.

So we have two possible interpretations:

1. A 2D generation is 900 years, which is exactly 100 times an arbitrarily chosen value of 9 years for "the average animal's life". Which leads us to conclude that time accelerated by 100 fold as Earth moved from 2D to 3D. Which then leads us to assume that time will speed up by 10 fold as 3D enters 4D. Why 10 times, you ask? Well 10 is the number you need to divide 1350 by to get 135 for the upper limit of a generation and half in early 4D. This then allows you to discount Ra's 700 year maximum transition time into 135 years from 1936, which is still 2071, a full sixty years after the supposed instantaneous transition.

2, An early 3D generation was 900 years, thus a generation and half was 1350 years. Time has stayed the same, and will stay the same. Even if 1936 is the point of the beginning of the transition, then the earliest that it could conclude is 2036, and it might push out to 2636.

I leave it to everyone to draw their own conclusions, but at this point I set the article aside and went back to my day job, disappointed, but convinced that I would not be whisked away from this mundane Earthly existence by an instantaneous ascension into 4D.

3D Sunset

[Monica]

When I pointed out the homonyms discrete and discreet, it was a valid point, since there was no way to really know, by the sound of the word, which word Ra intended. However, I didn't know that discrete was also a physics term. I just did a search and, sure enough, several physics sites came up, using the term in applications relevant to quantum physics, so it appears that Ali is correct that the term discrete has specific meaning as relates to quantum physics.

Therefore, I concede Ali's point that, taking the context into consideration, it now seems obvious to me that discrete is the term Ra intended.

However, this new revelation only alters my point slightly, and does not alter my stance at all.

My original point was that it was very shaky to base an entire doctrine (for this is beginning to read like a doctrine, imo) on a guess as to which definition was correct...ie putting so much weight on a single statement, much less a single word!

But, even if DW's interpretation of that single word is correct, as I now believe it is, that does not necessarily mean that his conclusions are correct or even plausible.

I now acknowledge that discrete was the correct term in referring to the behavior of quanta.

What does this really mean?

It just means that there is a definite distinction between 3D and 4D.

We already knew that!!

We also already knew that 4D already exists! (As quoted by Ra earlier in this thread.)

So, is the transition of Earth to 4D really the issue?

It seems to me that the real question is: how do we transition? Not how does Gaia transition...Gaia already has a multi-layered existence of 7 densities...the question is how do we start living in Gaia's 4D layer instead of her 3D layer. I personally choose to accept as being far more logical/reasonable Q'uo's assertion that the 100-700 year range is intended for already harvested souls to assist in healing the Earth. Perhaps 3D will no longer be inhabitable, but it seems reasonable to me that, even though it might no longer be used for habitation, a toxic 3D layer might still affect the 4D layer; hence, the need for volunteers to hang around for awhile to clean up the mess and help the planet heal from all the abuse.

The idea that we would ALL be ready to transition at the same time (on Solstice 2012) could happen only if we succeeded in attaining that one grand moment of inspiration, which Ra said was highly improbable (though ever possible).

It seems irresponsible to create a doctrine, which serves to both frighten people (ie. the world as we know it will end in 3 years) or give them a definite but possibly false ascension date seemingly set in stone (I will escape this reality in 3 years and all will be peachy...we'll have a big party and tell everyone "I told you so" and gloat).

Either way, it still goes back to doing something Ra themselves would never do: predict a specific outcome on a specific date, with no regard to multiple possibilities within the possibility/probability vortex.

I ask all of you: Is there a precedent for this? When has Ra ever made so bold a pronouncement?

[Monica]

I would now like to share DWs interpretation that ultimately caused me to quit reading his treatise, and I have not looked at it since until we started discussing it on this website.

A GENERATION OF 2D IS 900 YEARS
Now when we gate back into our previous excerpt from Session 40, Don again brings this figure of a generation and a half up. Then Ra further clarifies.
Questioner: How long was the time of transition on this planet between second and third-density? A generation and a half I believe. Is that correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct, the time measured in your years being approximately 1,350.

DW: Interesting. This means that a "generation" of second density is 900 years of our time.

I think this is a misinterpretation. It had already been established that human lifespans were around 900 years:

Ra: I am Ra. At the beginning of this particular portion of your space/time continuum the average life span was approximately nine hundred of your years.

Don did not explicitly say 'a generation and a half of animal life' but, since they were discussing animal lives, it was assumed that Ra's answer was referring to animal lifetimes.

It makes more sense to me that Don was simply measuring a length of time in terms of the lifespans of that era. This is speculation on my part. But the statement just doesn't make sense in terms of animal lifespans, being that plants and animals are all 2D until they reach sentience, with varying lifespans. A fruitfly lives only days, if I remember correctly, cats might live a couple of decades, and turtles might live hundreds of years. I just can't believe Ra would have meant that ALL 2D lifeforms would have the SAME lifespan - a fruitfly the same as an elephant? That's just not plausible. Also, animals have this habit of eating one another, which has the unfortunate effect of shortening their lives. So unless the lions were lying beside the lambs back then, I just don't see it.

Hence, I disagree with DW's interpretation because it's simply not plausible.

TIME HAS SPED UP — POSSIBLY 100 TIMES FASTER

Are you paying attention? This strongly implies that time as we know it has DRAMATICALLY sped up between second and third-density. We already know that in third-density the average animal's life is probably 9 years at best.

Ra secretly has slipped in the fact that time started going at least 100 times faster in 3D than it was in 2D!

This means that the actual RATE at which a creature lives out its life increased by 100 times. This is consistent with other reports I've seen of the variability of time.

WHOA, this is stacking assumption on top of assumption.

Therefore, such a speeding-up should happen again when we go into 4D — but if our time is going faster now than it was before, the time period should be a lot less than 1350 years.

HOW FAST WILL WE TRANSITION INTO FOURTH DENSITY?

If it were to happen ten times faster than before, that's a target window of 135 years. That's actually not a bad guess based on the real material in the text. Let's read Don's question and get the answer:

Again, quite a stretch, imho. DW is certainly entitled to his opinion. I think there is a huge amount of assumption here...with lots of If's and should's.

Being that this statement by Ra is so conclusive, I just don't think such iffy guesses are sufficient to override definitive statements by Ra.

Questioner: Then what will be the time of transition on this planet from third to fourth-density?

Ra: I am Ra. This is difficult to estimate due to the uncharacteristic anomalies of this transition. There are at this space/time nexus beings incarnate which have begun fourth-density work. However, the third-density climate of planetary consciousness is retarding the process.

At this particular nexus the possibility/probability vortices indicate somewhere between 100 and 700 of your years as transition period. This cannot be accurate due to the volatility of your peoples at this space/time.

Read this carefully. Don asked "Then what will be..." indicating what will happen in the future...not what had already been happening since some arbitrary date in the past whose significance is based on iffy guesses. Sure, 1936 might have some significance, but so do lots of other dates. Undoubtedly the date of the Roswell crash had significance...the date of John Lennon's assassination, and myriad other pivotal moments. I just don't think DW's case about the transition being nearly at its end is strong enough to override (what seem to me to be) some very clear statements by Ra.

Many of Ra's statements are indeed subject to interpretation. I just don't think this is one of them.

For DW to make so light of it, by saying:

DW: Here is the one and ONLY 'gradualist' quote in the entire Law of One series. You just read the ONE quote that has created the WHOLE PROBLEM everyone's arguing about.

...seems almost flippant. To disregard a statement so definitive, in favor of speculation based on what seem to me to be loosely linked guesses, just seems like a wild stretch to me.

Ra, Book III, Session 63
Questioner: Then at some time in the future the fourth-density sphere will be fully activated. What is the difference between full activation and partial activation for this sphere?

Ra: I am Ra. At this time the cosmic influxes are conducive to true color green core particles being formed and material of this nature thus being formed. However, there is a mixture of the yellow-ray and green-ray environments at this time necessitating the birthing of transitional mind/body/spirit complex types of energy distortions. At full activation of the true color green density of love the planetary sphere will be solid and inhabitable upon its own and the birthing that takes place will have been transformed through the process of time, shall we say, to the appropriate type of vehicle to appreciate in full the fourth-density planetary environment. At this nexus the green-ray environment exists to a far greater extent in time/space than in space/time.

Questioner: Could you describe the difference that you are speaking of with respect to time/space and space/time?

Ra: I am Ra. For the sake of your understanding we will use the working definition of inner planes. There is a great deal of subtlety invested in this sound vibration complex, but it, by itself, will perhaps fulfill your present need.

Questioner: I will make this statement and have you correct me. What we have is, as our planet is spiraled by the spiraling action of the entire major galaxy and our planetary system spirals into the new position, the fourth density vibrations becoming more and more pronounced. These atomic core vibrations begin to create, more and more completely, the fourth density sphere and the fourth-density bodily complexes for inhabitation of that sphere. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is partially correct. To be corrected is the concept of the creation of green-ray density bodily complexes. This creation will be gradual and will take place beginning with your third-density type of physical vehicle and, through the means of bisexual reproduction, become by evolutionary processes, the fourth-density body complexes.

Questioner: Then are these entities of whom we have spoken, the third density harvestable who have been transferred, the ones who then will, by bisexual reproduction, create the fourth-density complexes that are necessary?

Ra: I am Ra. The influxes of true color green energy complexes will more and more create the conditions in which the atomic structure of cells of bodily complexes is that of the density of love. The mind/body/spirit complexes inhabiting these physical vehicles will be, and to some extent, are, those of whom you spoke and, as harvest is completed, the harvested entities of this planetary influence.

As you can see in the above quote, this is indeed another 'gradualist' quote...mention of 'evolutionary processes' sounds rather gradual to me...so the '100 to 700 years' quote is certainly not the only one.