David Wilcock

[Ali Quadir]

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.

Thank you, Wilcock is bound to be wrong somewhere, no man is flawless. We have decided to try to find out where.

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

I doubt we'll ever have to... My understanding so far is that these two opposing visions are not as opposed as they might seem. Wilcock clearly supports gradual long term changes both in the earth as in humanity. However, he also considers the seemingly instantaneous changes to be a part of this.

Ra suggests long term changes. But also suggest a harvest for which a potential nexus fits inside a year. The difference is not that big and possibly is completely based upon the amount of importance we put on one or the other.

Basically this is how chaotic systems work. There seems to be nothing going on, no changes or just slight ones. And then all of a sudden the whole system leaps towards another attractor and stays dynamic and seemingly changeless around that one. Our sciencepriests and mathemagicians have barely begun to understand these processes. And while we can somewhat understand them we cannot predict them at all. They are potentially non deterministic.

But the point is, we(us as humanity) do understand some basic properties. And Ra and Wilcock are correct when they describe the world as these kind of systems with this kind of behavior.

Evolution has never been smooth incremental steps.

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!

Wilcock is bound to be wrong somewhere. It's not important to determine if he is or is not, it's important to determine exactly where he is wrong. And then see if this is a slight ambiguity or a major crime against the original material.

3D Sunset actually already suggested some good areas. For one what happens with those who do not graduate is a bit unclear to me. The shift into timespace where they would not notice the difference could use further clarification. I could answer this from the old religions but the point is that we're comparing to the Ra material, not to old religions.

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.

I expect you're right in this.. I'd note that Wilcock is stating something similar. He's not saying that after the shift all will be done and good and finished. There never will be a point of stasis there will always be dynamic balances shifting and changing in a cosmic dance. I think you can bet your bottom on the fact that after the shift the work is only just beginning.

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).

I'm not sure what Ra said here or where he said it, I'd love a quote or reference. I'm personally of the opinion that it's not unlikely that half the planet is going to be turned a few heartbeats before the actual shift. But that's just my position based on my experience around some of the masters I've met. They really do freaky things to our energy system. And if the whole world suddenly is filled with ascended masters even the most bitter and primitive person is going to receive a strong pull upwards. Right now there's only a few hundred thousand pulling, but what if critical mass is reached and everyone starts pulling each other up? I think Wilcock considers this a largely physical event meaning that it doesn't matter much where you're at. Everyone is going to step through the gateway it's only afterwards that we decide where we want to go next.

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).

He's not scaring anyone. He's constantly telling everyone that all will be well. He's calming down people occasionally writing a piece to address some major worry. Also he did not create this doctrine. This is not his invention. Just like a heliocentric solar system was not Copernicus his invention. It was there he just figured it out. Everything he says has been out there for years. In fact I knew much of it as a child through my "fantasy" friends. I even got an estimate to a personal date of 2014 which is supposedly after the events take place.. This was a full decade before I started to discover that people all over the world had the same "Fantasies"...

There is not going to be massive deaths. That's just one way of calling when you cease to exist in the 3d. If Wilcock is saying anything he's saying in 2012 we're going to visit trip out city and it'll be ecstatic. So either he's wrong and nothing happens, or it'll be pleasurable. Big scare there compared to the "Obama is going to nuke the world and put your children in concentration camps" trash that others are spewing out.

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.

Actually there are multiple possibilities. And if you would follow David you'd see that he is aware of multiple timelines and outcomes. He is however getting more and more fixed on a specific one as the threshold draws closer. I personally saw the timelines shift 3 times now. Every time it shifted this was to the benefit of mankind and caused by mankind. All bets are off. So yes, 2012 might not happen after all. Wilcock might be wrong. But so might everyone be.. Ra suggested that 2011 was an appropriate nexus for the harvest to occur. But he could not predict it well at the time. This was a long time ago, right now we're at T - 3 years. And Wilcocks predictions which are not at all scary but more a humorous, sit back and enjoy the downfall of the negative elite. Grab some popcorn and you know, after they fell, help em get back up... They're not our enemies anymore. 20 years ago the timelines indicated that we'd have to fight and bleed very very hard for this. One timeline indicated chocolate pudding to hit the fan around 1996-1999. It didn't. If it did there would be a big chance that I'd be dead by now considering my understanding at the time of what was to happen.

You're very right, Wilcock might be wrong. I was wrong before and I have no guarantees against being wrong now.

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

To be honest, most of Ra's pronouncements are bold But he did state the nexus for harvest to potentially be in 2011... With the addition that time was hard to work with for him. This isn't that far of.

Don't get me wrong. This is just a measuring of ideas versus ideas. Weighing them, judging them approving or criticizing them only serves to understand their value better and find our way to truth.

I hope I'm not too attached to one timeline. I've seen in the past that this did not serve me well.

[Quantum]

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

It is a most pleasant dialoging with you Ali. I am glad the ambiguity was understood and that you found it excellent. I hope you find more of the same below. Your logic is most discreet, or should one suggest discrete instead? lol. I dare say, and hope you would agree, that this is proving to be a most interesting thread. In fact, it has become a wonderful study mechanism as a result and therefore most delightful, turning into what I so had hoped for: a respectful, yet dicey, passionate, sensitive, and challenging discussion that may further our seeking.

But the ambiguity remains my friend. Let us press on for a moment more before I bring another example to light in my next post.

Although I am a man that was trained in science, who then moved to the material world of investments, it is very clear that I will forever have the mind of the philosopher. I say this in as much as we with great folly speak to the very heart of my point. It is as if we believe, even if for only fleeting moments at a time, and existing in micro-glimmers no less, that we might attempt to put logic to magic, as is the case of the metaphysical or esoteric. It is indeed folly, as much as it is hubris on our parts. Having said this, it is humorously however all we have in 3D as we stumble through the shadows dimly. So...with humor and intention at once, here we go again, let us try:

1. Quanta: In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is an indivisible entity of a quantity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta
A quantum is a measurement, i.e., the measurement of an indivisible entity.

2. Entity: An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity

The point as to the quanta of entities being discrete is well taken, given that indeed they are "separate and apart" particles.

However, my point:

It is the entity(ies) which comprise the quanta that are separate and apart, which by definition are discrete. Perhaps this is not what was spoken to by Ra as being discreet .

It may be the movement that is spoken to, which in fact may be discreet.

So said another way:

Ra may indeed be suggesting that the quanta which by definition do indeed contain separate entities of particles is discrete.

or

Ra may equally be entertaining the notion that it is "the motion over the boundary" which is discreet.

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.

This small nuance of meanings renders two entirely different interpretations, one in support for a spontaneous shift, verses the other in support for a gradualist shift. Either is based entirely on the homonym discrete vs discreet, with the emphasis on the particles of quanta being separate and apart and therefore discrete, or the motion over the boundary being fine and delicate if not imperceptible as in disrceet.

It is not the nature of quanta to be discreet.

True enough. But it may be very much be in the nature for the movement to be discreet.

Now, what is my point? To deduce how many angels dance on the head of a pin, as would a materialist? Or is it my point to deduce, dissect, bifurcate, compartmentalize, and surgically segment a word or the inference of a sentence and it's meaning so excruciatingly to the point of laboriously playing ping pong with these meanings and inferences? No.

My point as the philosopher is that we refrain from claiming any authority or scholarly knowledge, either to the world, or between ourselves, as though I have a "Proof Positive" and am therefore in a better position than you to know, and let me count the ways. It is a FOOLS GAME. It is not a game for the True SEEKER, Student, or Scholar.

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.

Case in point. See what happens? It proves it only for you and only if you say it needs to, in which case one will no doubt be at odds at seeing it in any other way, as you won't let you.

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.

See what I mean again? What indeed would Ra have meant. As you pointed out my friend, its ambiguity everywhere we look.

I admit I have absolutely no proof whatsoever at all: nill, nada, zip for what I offer as to what Ra meant, or as to what may be a different interpretation. Neither does Tom, Dick, Harry, or David, or Monica, Yoasarrian, Ali, or 3D. Stop me, before I name all members of every forum every joined, as well as the rest of humanity. And then this still would not be enough. There still exists every human being that ever has, does, or will live in 3D, and presumably anywhere else in the universes as well. But neither I or Tom, Dick, Harry,Yoassrian, 3D, or Monica have ever claimed once that they had "Proof Positive" to our beloved subject. It is preposterous to claim to have proof positive to anything when speaking to esoterica. There was but only one name that was not mentioned who indeed claimed he did have proof positive.

I will say with full conviction, I do not know what Ra meant in every single instance, or even in many. I may be convicted in some. I may be lost in others. I am a Seeker. I am a student. I certainly do not believe in scholars or authorities however, who I know I know are just as lost as all the rest of us, and as particularly regards interpretations on this particular subject matter of esoterica, whether it be specifically the LOO, the Bible, or any other such source for such information. If I am being told by anyone that they have Proof Positive, I already know we have a problem. I can and will only smile respectfully, if not gently, and ask "say what?"

I therefore maintain once again that based on such a small nuance as to is Ra referring to the movement as being discreet, verses the quanta as discrete, albeit both movement and quanta are in the same one sentence, is nonetheless the same one sentence that Wilcock singularly stakes his reputation and scholarly claim on. How odd that he would find this one single sentence to do so with? I find it delightfully humorous as if though the universe giggles in profound glee at our dilemma of being lost, given this is the purpose of being here, i.e. to be lost.

I maintain that Wilcock therefore may have inadvertently offered a wonderful juxtaposing counterargument to his very own Proof Positive argument as a result, and this moreover by staking the full weight of his authority and scholarly mantle on such a nuance of meaning so as to render the interpretation moot as much as his claims. Although a quantum may be a discrete particle as per a physics definition, as though separate and apart, it is presumptuous to assume that one may divine the motion of a particle moving across a boundary as being either discreet vs discrete, this even in 3D. It is beyond presumptuous to assume or divine that such said particles move discretely verses discreetly across the boundaries from a 3D environments to 4D. How would anyone know? It is folly to suggest that 3D, much less 4D even exists, other than by faith alone. And now based on one faith statement alone of 3D, compounded by a second of 4D, compounded by the faith we all share in Ra, compounded by the motion as opposed to the quanta of particles, one would seriously stake his reputation and scholarly claim to this? It is a FOOLS GAME. My assertion and argument can not be argued against, even as much as I can not argue for it. It would be foolish. Monica's discovery and uncovering as regards the nuance of words and homonyms was brilliant enough. Now we even have their placement and accent as to what is being referred to that needs be taken into account.

I would be happy to offer another example of the authors claims unless we wish to continue with the "gradualist verses spontaneous shift" for a bit more. I would otherwise close this assertion by the author by suggesting that PROOFS are ludicrous in the realm of magic and esoterica given they would pierce the veil of unknowingness for which we came here for, i.e. to be confounded. I say again, the meaning remains a mystery, the author's scholarly authority does not. We all speculate in the dark at best, presumably as it should be. One needn't be in such a rush to follow anyone claiming so much confidence through lollypop fields, particularly when one may choose from the attractive candy cane orchids as well. There is a plethora of syrup to choose from. Wide is the way, yet narrow is the path. For the moment, all man sees as though through a glass dimly.

1 Corinthians 13 : "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known". http://kingjbible.com/1_corinthians/13.htm

Q

[Ali Quadir]

It is a most pleasant dialoging with you Ali. I am glad the ambiguity was understood and that you found it excellent. I hope you find more of the same below. Your logic is most discreet, or should one suggest discrete instead? lol. I dare say, and hope you would agree, that this is proving to be a most interesting thread. In fact, it has become a wonderful study mechanism as a result and therefore most delightful, turning into what I so had hoped for: a respectful, yet dicey, passionate, sensitive, and challenging discussion that may further our seeking.

And it is a pleasure to discuss the matter with a gentleman such as yourself dear Q.

Although I am a man that was trained in science, who then moved to the material world of investments, it is very clear that I will forever have the mind of the philosopher.

Might I out of curiosity ask what science you were trained in Q?

1. Quanta: In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is an indivisible entity of a quantity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta
A quantum is a measurement, i.e., the measurement of an indivisible entity.

2. Entity: An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity

The point as to the quanta of entities being discrete is well taken, given that indeed they are "separate and apart" particles.

Not true, if you read the above wikipedia statements again you will see that the word particle is never actually used. In fact you were most wise to look up the meaning of the word entity as well. Because you realized that it was an important part of the definition.

Quanta are not particles. They are separate and apart entities. The difference between a particle and an entity is that an entity can express itself in a number of different ways including being a particle, while a particle can only be a particle. There is no reason for example why an entity should not express itself as a wave, or as a charge and indeed they do this in physics on a regular basis.

In a more spiritual realm we use the word entity also to describe ourselves, we are entities, yet we are not particles. When we speak about an electron bound to an atom we do not speak about a particle. The electron is in this case an entity inside the particle that is the atom.

However, my point:

It is the entity(ies) which comprise the quanta that are separate and apart, which by definition are discrete. Perhaps this is not what was spoken to by Ra as being discreet .

It may be the movement that is spoken to, which in fact may be discreet.

Potentially we could assume that Ra meant only the entities to be discrete. And the movement being discreet.

However, this would imply that Ra takes a radical departure from our meaning of the word quanta. We do use the word discrete to explain the movement across boundaries. An electron in an atom can only be in one of a few places. It can switch between those places but it can not be beteen these places. In stead what happens is that the electron ceases to be in one orbit and appears quite instantaneously in another orbit. This is movement across boundaries and has a number of interesting physical consequences. Physics students are taught to calculate the odds that a particle that is trapped inside a container could suddenly appear outside the container, without actually passing through the barrier.

This is what physics means when they say "The nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discrete placement of vibratory level."

This is the nature of our universe. Our classical world views are outdated and have been outdated for a number of years now.

Ra is eons ahead of our scientific understanding. I find it unlikely that he uses the old fashioned world view that we've taught ourselves.

This small nuance of meanings renders two entirely different interpretations, one in support for a spontaneous shift, verses the other in support for a gradualist shift. Either is based entirely on the homonym discrete vs discreet, with the emphasis on the particles of quanta being separate and apart and therefore discrete, or the motion over the boundary being fine and delicate if not imperceptible as in disrceet.

But let me remind you that you're still basing your philosophy on the assumption that the transcription of the session involved a spelling error.

It is not the nature of quanta to be discreet.

True enough. But it may be very much be in the nature for the movement to be discreet.

Unfortunately, one of the incredible aspects of modern physics is that the movement is not discreet, but discrete. I hear you thinking Xeno's paradox. And yes that's an incredible problem if we consider the universe to move particles in discrete steps. But ONLY if we do not assume speed to be a property inherent to a particle as opposed to only position in the classic views. All those problems go away if we assume impulse to be part of a particles makeup.

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.

Case in point. See what happens? It proves it only for you and only if you say it needs to, in which case one will no doubt be at odds at seeing it in any other way, as you won't let you.

My point is not that we cannot be wrong in our understanding. My point is that we should only depart from a point of view if we have found one that is better supported by the facts. Stepping from a literal translation of the sentence to the assumption of a spelling error has side effects that effectively make the step a step backwards.

For one, we're assuming the Law of One gang doesn't know how to spell. We're assuming that the universe is discreet and not discrete which is contradicted by modern science. We're assuming that Ra's further explanations about the subject imply the meaning of discreet and not as discrete. Which as we saw they do not.

If we assume the sentence to be correctly spelled not only do we find it to be confirmed by Ra's further explanations, we also find it to be supported by physics... To the letter.

I will say with full conviction, I do not know what Ra meant in every single instance, or even in many. I may be convicted in some. I may be lost in others. I am a Seeker. I am a student. I certainly do not believe in scholars or authorities however, who I know I know are just as lost as all the rest of us, and as particularly regards interpretations on this particular subject matter of esoterica, whether it be specifically the LOO, the Bible, or any other such source for such information. If I am being told by anyone that they have Proof Positive, I already know we have a problem. I can and will only smile respectfully, if not gently, and ask "say what?"

Well I have to agree with this. To state that in an empirical universe we can actually have the scientific version of "proof" of anything at all is based on a misunderstanding of what that word means and of what the empirical universe is like.

However, if we replace the word "Proof positive" with "Undeniable evidence" then I think we've got a much better understanding of what he is trying to say.

There is no doubt in my mind that Wilcock could be wrong. There is also a high likelyhood that he IS wrong on a few of his ideas. However, we have not yet determined him to actually be wrong on this gradual versus instantaneous question.

I therefore maintain once again that based on such a small nuance as to is Ra referring to the movement as being discreet, verses the quanta as discrete, albeit both movement and quanta are in the same one sentence, is nonetheless the same one sentence that Wilcock singularly stakes his reputation and scholarly claim on. How odd that he would find this one single sentence to do so with? I find it delightfully humorous as if though the universe giggles in profound glee at our dilemma of being lost, given this is the purpose of being here, i.e. to be lost.

Actually Wilcocks position is obviously not built solely on this statement. This to him is a very clear explanation of the discrete nature of densities. As it is to me. So I think I'm still very much inclined to accept Wilcocks interpretation. But lets consider the alternatives.

We've seen that Wilcocks position is not just instantaneous, he accepts clearly like freezing water that there is a longer period involved even if he suggests that the biggest actual changes are semi instantaneous.

Lets examine what support is there for the gradualist position shall we? Would you be so kind as to make the case for it? Lets not assume gradualism to be the logical position unless we've determined on what grounds we assume it to be the logical position.

And let me give you a spoiler in advance that just because Ra states long periods of time that are involved in the change this does not mean that there is not an instantaneous component to the change as well. As I said Wilcock also recognizes those longer periods of time. So any gradualist position should not just be built around the long periods but around the absence of burst changes.

[3D Sunset]

It always seemed to me that DWs (and by extension all of Divine Cosmos') as well as now this thread's focus on the discussion is somewhat misdirected, or at least overly restricted. The focus of these discussions has always seemed to me to revolve around what happens to the body. Does it die, does it transmute, does it accelerate to light speed and poke through to time/space, does it continue to live on 3D Earth, can it live on 4D Earth, what are dual-activated bodies, how long is a generation, etc., etc., etc.

A much more interesting question to me, is what happens to the mind, and even the spirit of the mind/body/spirit complex. I believe that considering this could shed some light on the question of the body.

Consider, for example, the fact that in 4D (as well as in time/space after death) the veil is removed. I think that this fact more than any other points to the profound difference between 3D and 4D. Living as we do in our 3D consciousness, it is extremely difficult to fathom the effect that this could have on our perspectives about everything. This is actually one of my primary reasons for rejecting the concept of instantaneous ascension. Because if it does involve an instantaneous awareness of all of our past lives, victories, failures, trespassings, trials, and tribulations, it would seem to me that the 3D mind would quite likely and quite literally explode.

I found it interesting that in one of DWs arguments, he states that most "gradualists" probably have an unresolved issue with death and are not ready to let go of life. I actually see it a little differently. To me, most people that support the instantaneous ascension theory (note that I avoid creating the label of "instantaneousists", which in my opinion only serves to separate us), seem to be too tied to their existing mind and ego, and want to support a scenario that allows them to remain largely, intellectually, and mentally "in-tact" as it were.

In my opinion, the "I" that will exist in 4D will actually be not unlike a stand alone social memory complex, in that it will have access to the distilled experiences of all of "my" past incarnations, that will have already been accepted and integrated into a "mental consensus" of the associated experiences. I find it laughably absurd that anyone thinks that "they" will awake one morning in a new 4D world with their 3D sensibilities. (As a simple example consider the Thread under Divine Cosmos' Law of One forum, that is entitled "Upcoming 4D Harvest... Will I be able to keep my guitars?", which is a veritable bonfire for the vanities of those involved in the discussion).

So, in short, I say: "Who cares how long it takes and what happens to the body?" What is magnitudes more pertinent and more fascinating, IMHO, is what happens to the mind, and what is it really like living in space/time without a veil for the first time?

It was my consideration of this question that cemented my disinterest in the other.

Any and all thought are welcomed,

3D Sunset

[fairyfarmgirl]

The New Earth is unlike any experience we have ever experienced. Thus, to ponificate as to what it will be like is a little like describing what it is to be a speck when one has no experience in speck-a-tude... We will all know what it is to be in 4D (hey it rhymes) when we get there. And we will know when we do get there for it will be unlike anything we have experienced and it will definately make an impression.

I consider it like a birth into a new consciousness. Birth always happens naked. So I assume I will be completely bare and new to the New Earth and a bit wobbly and full of cries and questions and hoping someone will help me. Same as an infant. What is it like. Bottom line. We will know when we get there and if we have to ask if we are there yet-- We ain't.

fairyfarmgirl

[AppleSeed]

entitled "Upcoming 4D Harvest... Will I be able to keep my guitars?"

That is so cute!!! I'm not tempted to go look up the thread, but the title alone made my day. Actually, as a musician I can sympathize - my instrument has been invaluable in my spiritual development and ongoing awakening. Music allows a glimpse into a different world, much more telepathy-driven and closer to "home". As a violinist I regularly play instruments that are hundreds of years old, and in a way they have a life of their own. I trust that if they will be needed, they will still be around, just as I trust that if I am needed, I will still be around.

Would the 3D mind explode? If the mind can't handle the transition, it just might be handed the opportunity to repeat the grade. The transition in itself will hardly be gradual, whether it happens at a specific date for all of us, or spread out over a longer period of time. Whichever it is, I'm looking forward to it, and am trying to enjoy the ride while I'm still here.

[Monica]

Wow, 3D, that is an amazingly profound post!

[Quantum]

Might I out of curiosity ask what science you were trained in Q?

Absolutely you may. I am/was a physician. I assume you to be trained in the sciences as well?

In a more spiritual realm we use the word entity also to describe ourselves, we are entities, yet we are not particles.

I think its fair to suggest that we are made up of particles as much as it is fair to suggest that all of the the physical world is as well. I fear however we will get lost in the minutia of words if we also pursue this and that we may diverge into yet other conversations as regards the finer meanings of words. I will state: being that words are finite, they can not contain the infinite. We live in the shadow of knowingness. We do not live in the light of knowingness. This is the GAME that Ra spoke to so often. The finite is not capable of containing the infinite. A word at best is finite, as are all words. This was my previous point in the previous posts as to "celebrating the mystery", irrespective of how much "misery the illusion seems to create" as a result of it. The "mistery" (mystery + misery) contains as much pain as it does joy. The mystery is not to be unveiled. It is neither misery or joy that are the consequence of mystery. It is learning and growth that is. Herein lies the joy. The mystery in all of its infinite forms, including the illusion of misery, is a primary requirement to PLAY. The GAME requires us to get wet by taking the plunge. We're in it up to our elbows, if not over our heads. Celebrate the water and getting wet then. Let us allow ourselves the celebration of attempting to unveil the mystery while yet knowing that we can not, even though playing seems to require that we must. I therefore nod and wink at you my friend, while submerged and holding my breath under water for my time, knowing you are as well, and as a result know you know as little as me, as you know I know as little as you. We get into trouble when we feel we know more than others, as much as we do when we feel we know less. But we here at least hopefully are able to "not need to play" the role of the authority, scholar, sage, or savant, and as a result are equally able to not squeal when stuck or poked or challenged that we may be wrong. There are some that are not predisposed to the quality of lightheartedness, and as a result are more inclined to fight for the right to be right. They have a great need to be right. It is difficult at best to see clearly underwater with eyes wide open, holding your breath no less.

Potentially we could assume that Ra meant only the entities to be discrete. And the movement being discreet.

Thank you Ali for even yielding if ever so very slightly to this. This is exactly my position; the potential exists for another interpretation. There simply unequivocally are no solid positions or positive proofs when dealing with the esoteric, as there is no esoteric value system.

Please allow me to further clarify: I am not arguing for a Gradualist Position in this thread as much as I am arguing against the Spontaneous Transition as a FACT. It is absurd to do so. Theses so called facts when speaking to the magical principles of the metaphysical become meaningless. This is my point. Scholars do not debate the un-debatable. Fools do. By the mere fact that Ra may have potentially meant something else than has been assumed leaves the mystery a mystery, as it should be. To be more clear, I am tending to focus more to the original question posed by Sirus on his opening thread #1 , than to much of the same information/discussion that may be viewed on "What Is Your Gut Feelings on 2012" / The Harvest.

This small nuance of meanings renders two entirely different interpretations, one in support for a spontaneous shift, verses the other in support for a gradualist shift. Either is based entirely on the homonym discrete vs discreet, with the emphasis on the particles of quanta being separate and apart and therefore discrete, or the motion over the boundary being fine and delicate if not imperceptible as in disrceet.

But let me remind you that you're still basing your philosophy on the assumption that the transcription of the session involved a spelling error.

Yes and no. But exactly my point in both cases. It may have been an innocent error in transcription based on a homonym. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a spelling error. If we are willing to concede even such a small point, it changes everything. Everything. It leaves it in the realm of the Magical Mystery where it properly belongs, rather than dragging it down to unknowable facts, and of the earthbound no less. We know little if nothing of mysteries. As an example, I've sat in many depositions, trails, and arbitrations my friend. Many. It makes me an expert on absolutely nothing as much as a trained individual in one single thing. Confusion runs rampant between peoples. Why then would we wish to define ourselves or our beliefs on what otherwise may be someone else's mistake? Please believe me on this small point when I share that professional transcriptionists make errors. Transcriptionists are not infallible. Words are tricky buggers indeed. How would anyone other than Ra know what Ra meant? If it is a reasonable question, leaving a reasonable doubt, it creates a moot and stalemate dialogue for a conviction for either position. This is my entire point. As a result, on this one small position of gradualist verses spontaneous it leaves both wide open to faith positions, not proof positions. Period. I continue to state, perhaps as the only conviction statement I may make: We live in faith alone. We live in mystery. As much as I respect anyone and all on here, or elsewhere, let us be in agreement on the obvious. It is a definitive Proof Positive without reservation that we all live in faith. Even the confirmed atheist who claims no faith lives in a faith that there is no God. His too is a faith statement even when railing against it.

It is not the nature of quanta to be discreet.

True enough. But it may be very much be in the nature for the movement to be discreet.

I hear you thinking Xeno's paradox. And yes that's an incredible problem if we consider the universe to move particles in discrete steps. But ONLY if we do not assume speed to be a property inherent to a particle as opposed to only position in the classic views. All those problems go away if we assume impulse to be part of a particles makeup.

Exactly again my friend. I can not know with certainty what the Universe(s) do, even in 3D. No one can. What then can anyone say with regard to 4D and above? Forget about everything we think we know as regards science, particularly when speaking to the metaphysical, and certainly beyond 3D and above. We have yet to even come to scientific agreement that 3D exists. See? Is there even a 3D? And if there is, how do I or you or anyone know if 4D or above does not influence 3D and below, either profoundly or sublimely? 4D may influence discreet movement while 3D does not. I don't know. You don't, I don't, we don't. You, me, uncle Bob, and all the Kings Horses and all the Kings men and all of the sciences combined can not know with absolute and full certainty what the Universe(s) do with particles, entities, frequencies, vibrations, etc, even in 3D, much less beyond. If we did, we wouldn't be here. If these properties always acted the same way each and every single time even in 3D, then there would be no walking on water, healing, raising of the dead, or any other miracle. You must concede this in as much as if you believe in any of it, then you do so only by faith alone. If you believe in the existence of a 3D, or a 4D, or a Ra, or the LOO, then you must believe in the suspension of everything you also believe to be hard science as well, or at least in the transcendence of it, which shakes out the same. Let us then not speak in facts when speaking to the ineffable. The ineffable is a wee bit larger than our wee facts or our wee understandings. This is my point. Our sciences and facts are but guideposts at best, only "sometimes" lighting the way, but are by no means "the way". Heck, I'll go so far as to suggest that the LOO is not the way either, but is only a template, or guidepost to light the way as well. The way is ineffable, as the way is the ineffable.

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.

Case in point. See what happens? It proves it only for you and only if you say it needs to, in which case one will no doubt be at odds at seeing it in any other way, as you won't let you. We are not at all talking about changing spelling my friend. We are talking to the heart of all matters. Perception. One is quite capable of correctly spelling the homonym that was misperceived as much as the pink elephant that is not only not discreet, but isn't even there. Misperception is the stuff of life. The pink screen I insist you are seeing that isn't there is spelled: p-i-n-k (humor as example intended).

My point is not that we cannot be wrong in our understanding. My point is that we should only depart from a point of view if we have found one that is better supported by the facts.

See what I mean again? We can indeed be very wrong in our understanding dear Ali. An assumption is an assumption is a point of view as much as was the one that supported that the world was flat. You suggest we need to remain with such an assumption to support your assumption and to dare not leave before we find one better suited for the next assumption. This does not even always hold sense in the physical. But in our case these assumptions are steeped and directed towards the metaphysical? One may not even support, much less depart from a point of view, even if we have indeed found one that is assumed to be better supported, given that almost all of what you again call facts are hardly available as regards the metaphysical. Although the reasoning that you purport is quite sound in the physical world, it is only sound when indeed we speak to the physical. It may hardly be said to be sound when speaking to the metaphysical. It may be even argued with respect to the physical that many of these "so called facts" seem to be in question with increasing frequency.

For one, we're assuming the Law of One gang doesn't know how to spell. We're assuming that the universe is discreet and not discrete which is contradicted by modern science. We're assuming that Ra's further explanations about the subject imply the meaning of discreet and not as discrete. Which as we saw they do not.

Please tell me that you might on second consideration consider rethinking what you didn't mean to say, but instead hastily wrote?
1."The Law of One gang" knows quite well how to spell I'm sure. It is simply a conjecture that no one knows which homonym was meant to be understood. The spelling is hardly in question. Discrete is spelled correctly as much as would have presumably been the word discreet had it been transcribed as well. Spelling is not at issue. Perception is.
2. Your suggest that "Modern science contradicts that the Universes is not discreet but is discrete" : The Universe(s) is not discreet? If we take this statement at face value we've taken an immeasurable quantum jump from our original conversation as regards "movement being discreet" vs "quanta being discrete" to now that the "Universe is not discreet". How would we know? How would modern science know? What can we say about the Universe(s) dear friend? It is a grand over-reach to even begin such a statement.
For the record, as much as the exercise, I'm willing to consider that The Universe(s) is probably Infinitely and Eternally very, very, very, very discreet. That's why its a mystery. I dare say that the Universes being infinite, and thereby being the sum total of all containing everything, is both discrete and discreet. Wouldn't you agree?

If we assume the sentence to be correctly spelled not only do we find it to be confirmed by Ra's further explanations, we also find it to be supported by physics... To the letter.

Yes, and if we assume that it is not a spelling error but a homonym heard with a different meaning mis-perceived then it is not confirmed, either to the letter, premise, or conclusion. We just don't know. Let us not assume any one thing as though factual when addressing the metaphysical, but instead remain open to all things, i.e. the mystery. Let us instead agree to entertain that it is a mystery, as much as is the universe(s), and that the universe(s) is both discrete as well as discreet. It is the Infinite Universe(s) after all, as opposed to a finite verse or word.

I will say with full conviction, I do not know what Ra meant in every single instance, or even in many. I may be convicted in some. I may be lost in others. I am a Seeker. I am a student. I certainly do not believe in scholars or authorities however, who I know I know are just as lost as all the rest of us...

Well I have to agree with this. To state that in an empirical universe we can actually have the scientific version of "proof" of anything at all is based on a misunderstanding of what that word means and of what the empirical universe is like.

We begin to agree then on the entire premise to the thread. We don't know.

We've seen that Wilcocks position is not just instantaneous, he accepts clearly like freezing water that there is a longer period involved even if he suggests that the biggest actual changes are semi instantaneous.
And let me give you a spoiler in advance that just because Ra states long periods of time that are involved in the change this does not mean that there is not an instantaneous component to the change as well. As I said Wilcock also recognizes those longer periods of time. So any gradualist position should not just be built around the long periods but around the absence of burst changes.

I may agree that the burst-change will be instantaneous. This reaffirms the obvious as inherent in critical mass. I think it however infinitely presumptuous to suggest that the instantaneous/burst change is one that needs occur on or about 2011-2013. This is the whole of the Wilcock assertion Ali?

By your closing statement it seems as if you have all along been suggesting that Wilcock does not suggest that 2011-2013 is not his fixed date in as much as you state that he contradicts himself by suggesting that it is not just instantaneous, but is semi-instantaneous, and over a period of time ? You continue to use the analogy of freezing water reaching a critical mass at which point it freezes instantaneously, which is true. But then you further seem to suggest as if though Wilcock is not suggesting that this will happen on or around 2011-2013? If this is what you are suggesting, then we have moved considerably far away from what Wilcock in fact goes beyond suggesting, but in fact argues for vehemently, this in spite of his gradual contradictions which you quite correctly cite.

Assuming I am correct in your inferences on what you suggest Wilcock suggests, and assuming you are further correct in what Wilcock suggests as to his semi-gradualist/semi-instantaneous (couldn't help it) assertions as well, then I agree that, if you are correct, its a heap of contradictions Wilcock makes, and therefore a mess of statements to untangle, and that it is not only not scholarly, but that it is absolutely not worth the effort.

I suggest that this is not at all what Wilcock attempts to state, even though you may have uncovered that perhaps he does nonetheless. I believe the conversation may be put to rest in as much as its a hodge podge as I've maintained, and that its becoming ever more clear. I will yield in deference to your wish that we continue with this if necessary, but that we consider not loosing the intent of the original thread, or tax the many readers that are closely following us. We are approaching 2,000 views and so are clearly being followed with what may be a wonderful study mechanism. This being so, we are as I've suggested from the onset, debating a stalemate point rendering it moot as much as the authors assertion as thereby moot as well. This by definition is less than scholarly. He cancels himself, if not by my point of a homonym then by yours that he states both positions, yet while locking it to a fixed time to be in 3 short years. This has been my only contention. Perhaps the wiser move is to move onto to another Wilcock assertion?

I will close with but one question to you on this matter of discrete vs discreet, and then several to Wilcocks assertions before moving to another of his statements:

Do you really dear Ali believe that the God Force is Omnipresent? If so, as I know you do, do you really believe that this omnipresent force does not move discreetly, even infinitely and indescribably discreetly, across boundaries? This is what Ra may have been referring to as a conjecture if the homonym was mis-perceived. Can you allow it as even a remote possibility? If you can not, it may be wiser to move on in any event in as much as we may have reached a stalemate. But I think in the context stated and implied you can. If so, we may move on as a result as well.

I will now close with several points to the so called scholarly claims made by the author Mr. Wilcock, then ask rhetorically, where is the proof positive to anything? And if there is no Proof Positive, as claimed by his own words, then how may we dare agree that it is scholarly, as also claimed by his own words?
1.There is no resolution to the Gradualist vs Spontaneous position. He has no Proof Positive. This is obvious. This is my only position. It is not scholarly nor authoritative, nor is it profound knowledge (the definition of scholarly).
2. He makes wild claims as to alien technology facilitating the trade towers falling. This is extremely wild at the very least. He has no Proof Positive. This is obvious. This is my only position. It is not scholarly, nor authoritative, nor is it profound knowledge (the definition of scholarly).
3. He claims certain knowledge, without any certain proof, of inside information that any child may pull down from a plethora of multiple and various websites as to illuminati, New Wold Order, Alien treaties, etc etc. He has no Proof Positive. This is obvious. This is my only position. It is not scholarly, nor authoritative, nor is it profound knowledge (the definition of scholarly).

I could go on. But let us turn to another assertion, as I fear this one (gradualist vs spontaneous) is taxed. "What are your gut feelings on 2012/The Harvest" has much more on this topic. Much more may be said to the many other assertions Wilcok makes and may serve equally as the study mechanism I hope.

I invite us to celebrate in the mysteries of life by allowing that the mysteries will remain mysteries, in spite of all of our words, and all of our science. I invite that although we are inherently moved to uncover the veil, that we remain conscious that we will not uncover the veil. We may grasp at it's fringes at best. The mystery will forever remain a mystery in 3D, as this is the design of 3D. Let us then continue grasping at the threads, as these lead us to the fleece of knowingness of the unknowable, unspeakable, and unreachable, while yet knowing that it is our nature to reach. We will get there, and although through here, just not from here.

Q

[Quantum]

A much more interesting question to me, is what happens to the mind, and even the spirit of the mind/body/spirit complex.

Consider, for example, the fact that in 4D (as well as in time/space after death) the veil is removed. I think that this fact more than any other points to the profound difference between 3D and 4D. Living as we do in our 3D consciousness, it is extremely difficult to fathom the effect that this could have on our perspectives about everything. This is actually one of my primary reasons for rejecting the concept of instantaneous ascension. Because if it does involve an instantaneous awareness of all of our past lives, victories, failures, trespassings, trials, and tribulations, it would seem to me that the 3D mind would quite likely and quite literally explode.

I found it interesting that in one of DWs arguments, he states that most "gradualists" probably have an unresolved issue with death and are not ready to let go of life. I actually see it a little differently. To me, most people that support the instantaneous ascension theory (note that I avoid creating the label of "instantaneousists", which in my opinion only serves to separate us), seem to be too tied to their existing mind and ego, and want to support a scenario that allows them to remain largely, intellectually, and mentally "in-tact" as it were.

In my opinion, the "I" that will exist in 4D will actually be not unlike a stand alone social memory complex, in that it will have access to the distilled experiences of all of "my" past incarnations, that will have already been accepted and integrated into a "mental consensus" of the associated experiences. I find it laughably absurd that anyone thinks that "they" will awake one morning in a new 4D world with their 3D sensibilities. (As a simple example consider the Thread under Divine Cosmos' Law of One forum, that is entitled "Upcoming 4D Harvest... Will I be able to keep my guitars?", which is a veritable bonfire for the vanities of those involved in the discussion).

Very well put. I very much like what you have to say here dear friend. I am reading in a sense, that perhaps although slightly differently stated, that we may nonetheless be in agreement, this as regards your words here vis-a-vis my last several posts where I suggest that all is a mystery in 3D, as it must be by design, and that though we are compelled to strive to unveil the mystery, and even must attempt to, it is as though we may only reach for the fringes at best. We perhaps get there through here, but not from here, as I suggested in my last closing. How then do we state facts about the mystical and infinite as though "Proof Positive Facts", and this in our puny yet all at once majestic and grandly beautiful 3D? It is almost unconscionable, if not desecrating, if not comedic gross arrogance, which is sadly laughable, tragic, and infinitely humorous at once.

Dear Ali, yourself, Monica, and Yossarian have contributed wonderfully to what has thus far been an intriguing study mechanism of the LOO in reverse, which for this moment we might consider as the Wilcockian path dissected. I think it works rather profoundly in fact. It forces us to look deeply at some rather lengthy interpretations that have in fact acted as the very foundations of knowledge of the LOO for many here. It is the large net you suggested, but that seemingly contains many tangled concepts, as a large net would, full of what might be challenged as many misperceptions.

It could not be done without Ali's grasp of the knowledge, as well as the issue as regards what he has termed the ambiguities. There is no denying his point. Nor could it be done without your keen insights and ability to see so much more otherwise, as seen even here, nor Monica's wonderful observation of a simple sublime and possible homonym, as well as Yoassarian prodding the search for so much of the conspiratorial aspects, which I frankly had a belly full of years ago through so many books, even before the internet (it is amazing how it all reads exactly the same information in almost every single aspect and way to the letter, minus the new events of the day - it only looks as though new to the new reader).

Q

[Ali Quadir]

Forgive me Q for the slow response. I think this topic is important enough to give well thought out responses. However, at this time my in laws are visiting. This requires me to play the host and swallow certain inconveniences among others that my computer is bumped from the lan as soon as my father in law turns on his laptop.

I have written a proper response and I expect to post it tonight. It is my policy on important topics like this one not to give knee jerk responses but to leave at least one hour between writing a response and actually posting it. Unfortunately this in combination with the royal visits from the south means my response is taking much longer than usual.

Please bear with me. I have some points to make. I understand the desire to wrap up the subject and I will be moving towards this wrapping up myself. Agreeing to disagree is never a shameful end to a discussion.

[Turtle]

And here is part of the reason why I'm done reading his posts/site.

For just the next two weeks, if you are capable of putting in 10K or more as an investor, you can join CONVERGENCE and be part of our higher-yield Stage 1 crew. Our goal is to have a great story at an affordable production cost, so as to insure the film is profitable enough that we can keep doing more of them.

CONVERGENCE investors are also part of our LLC, which means that you get a percentage of residuals as well… including book sales, conference revenues and the like.

As you may remember if you are a long-term or in-depth reader of this site, for the last two years our minimum buy-in has been 50K. Again, in light of needing these starter funds ASAP, we have reduced the minimum by 500 percent.

If you have an under-performing investment and can jump in and be involved, we will be eternally grateful to you. It would be a terrible shame to have this opportunity so close at hand and then lose it by not taking action, and thus getting blown out of the water by a major studio!

Now before anyone tries to defend him (and I'm not even attacking him) or tries to make it seem less drastic, remember all the other projects this man has that cost money. Just like Deepak Chopra or Eckhart Tolle, David Wilcock has to make a living, I know I know. I don't question that these men actually want to help others with their work...I question their clarity of purpose, and their methods, not so I can look down upon them, but so I don't waste my money on material that I don't really need.

I wish Mr.Wilcock the best of luck with his movie...personally I believe a documentary that is cheap to make would have been way more efficient at proving his arguments than a blockbuster with a plot that is aimed at reaching more people....sure you reach more people but, you reach them with the same effect as The Da Vinci Code, they walk out saying "eh, that was a cool twist on stuff that might be real, whatever"

:-/

[Ali Quadir]

Might I out of curiosity ask what science you were trained in Q?

Absolutely you may. I am/was a physician. I assume you to be trained in the sciences as well?

Clinical and health psychology formally. Where I've also picked up a love for the philosophy of science. Though that love was not initially clear But all in all those courses have served me best since. And information technology as a hobby and eventually I turned the latter one into a profession. Unfortunately the job market for graduated psychologists is not very strong here while IT specialists just have to raise their CV and get a number of good offers. I had tried initially to follow technical physics formally but it was not as I had expected. And I switched to psychology to avoid spending my life in a lab. I avoided switching to Computational Science because I figured I was already proficient in that. It'd be better to not focus on one area.

Just like you (I think I safely assume) that never stopped me from just sticking to those two fields though. I believe in the principle of homo universalis. I try to master two new sub fields or technologies per year. The demand I put on myself is that I can have a good discussion with an expert, not necisarily that I know every detail there is to know. I'm trying to get a good grasp of local history this period. Though admittedly I never had a head for names and dates.

Potentially we could assume that Ra meant only the entities to be discrete. And the movement being discreet.

Thank you Ali for even yielding if ever so very slightly to this. This is exactly my position; the potential exists for another interpretation. There simply unequivocally are no solid positions or positive proofs when dealing with the esoteric, as there is no esoteric value system.

Make no mistake my friend this is yielding for the sake of argument. I have not accepted this as true yet. But I think it'd be silly not to contemplate or "try on for size" the alternatives.

Please allow me to further clarify: I am not arguing for a Gradualist Position in this thread as much as I am arguing against the Spontaneous Transition as a FACT. It is absurd to do so. Theses so called facts when speaking to the magical principles of the metaphysical become meaningless.

As they are in the physical. Facts are only useful in math and logic. The analogy of the black swan clearly illustrates this. (Ok, all swans so far where white... -> Fact: Swans are white. And then we went to Australia.)

Wilcock may be wrong. I may be wrong. It is not my argument that I am correct. It is my argument that Wilcocks deduction of instantaneous changes from Ra's words is not clearly invalid, it is not based on a single potentially misspelled word. And it is not contradictory to an enveloping longer period of gradual changes.

1."The Law of One gang" knows quite well how to spell I'm sure. It is simply a conjecture that no one knows which homonym was meant to be understood. The spelling is hardly in question. Discrete is spelled correctly as much as would have presumably been the word discreet had it been transcribed as well. Spelling is not at issue. Perception is.

Yet one interpretation puts the sentence at odds with scientific understanding the other puts it in agreeance with modern scientific understanding. Does this have meaning to you? Or do you consider this irrelevant?

2. Your suggest that "Modern science contradicts that the Universes is not discreet but is discrete" : The Universe(s) is not discreet? If we take this statement at face value we've taken an immeasurable quantum jump from our original conversation as regards "movement being discreet" vs "quanta being discrete" to now that the "Universe is not discreet". How would we know? How would modern science know? What can we say about the Universe(s) dear friend? It is a grand over-reach to even begin such a statement.

No it is not an overreach. You're a physician not a physicist. Therefore I assume you're not informed about quantum physics which states exactly that the universe is discrete.

For the record, as much as the exercise, I'm willing to consider that The Universe(s) is probably Infinitely and Eternally very, very, very, very discreet. That's why its a mystery. I dare say that the Universes being infinite, and thereby being the sum total of all containing everything, is both discrete and discreet. Wouldn't you agree?

I would unfortunately not agree.

When an atom jumps from one position to another it does this in discrete steps, not in discreet steps. When time ticks, this happens in discrete steps, not discreet steps. When water freezes this is a discrete change, not a discreet change. Evolution occurs in discrete steps, not discreet steps. Many of the universes steps are too small for us to register consciously, however the truth of the matter is that modern science considers the events discrete, and not discreet. This is different from the more mechanistic discreet perception that was in favour when you were still in school.

So I can totally understand where the misunderstandings are coming from. However I cannot agree with your assumptions of discreetness.

I may agree that the burst-change will be instantaneous. This reaffirms the obvious as inherent in critical mass. I think it however infinitely presumptuous to suggest that the instantaneous/burst change is one that needs occur on or about 2011-2013. This is the whole of the Wilcock assertion Ali?

Yes, and Ra names the 2011 as an appropriate nexus in session 17. So it's not just Wilcock, Ra ALSO asserts this. However, the difference is that Wilcock states it pretty much as fact. And Ra states it as a point of increased likelyhood without actually calling it a fact.

Therefore it is possible for Wilcock to be wrong. However, Ra's words do not prove that he is wrong. Ra is open to this possibility.

By your closing statement it seems as if you have all along been suggesting that Wilcock does not suggest that 2011-2013 is not his fixed date in as much as you state that he contradicts himself by suggesting that it is not just instantaneous, but is semi-instantaneous, and over a period of time ? You continue to use the analogy of freezing water reaching a critical mass at which point it freezes instantaneously, which is true. But then you further seem to suggest as if though Wilcock is not suggesting that this will happen on or around 2011-2013? If this is what you are suggesting, then we have moved considerably far away from what Wilcock in fact goes beyond suggesting, but in fact argues for vehemently, this in spite of his gradual contradictions which you quite correctly cite.

This is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that both Ra and Wilcock suggest the long term slow changes and both suggest the short term rapid (quantum jump) changes. Both types existing as two sides in the same process.

I call the dichotomy between the Law of One and Wilcock a false one because I think the Law of One interpretation is not fully understood. The references, as was seen before, clearly indicate a nexus of change around 2011 suggested literally by Ra... (Even if Ra did not go as far as to say that that would be THE point of change) And also Ra argues (If we assume no misunderstood words) that the change between the two densities will be instantaneous.

The reason for the misunderstanding is in my carefull opinion because science in the last decade has explored all these new principles and concepts and now we know nature often works this discrete way that was not understood in the past.

Do you really dear Ali believe that the God Force is Omnipresent? If so, as I know you do, do you really believe that this omnipresent force does not move discreetly, even infinitely and indescribably discreetly, across boundaries?

I don't believe this indeed. Evolution does not move discreetly, the big bang creation of the universe was not a discreet event. Birth and death are not discreet events. And in truth almost nothing in nature is truly discreet. The changes may be minor. But if you look very closely at the points of change. There will always be a radical change from one state to another without passing through a point in the middle. Discreet is simply when those points are so close together that our human perceptions fail to discern the discrete nature.

This is what Ra may have been referring to as a conjecture if the homonym was mis-perceived. Can you allow it as even a remote possibility? If you can not, it may be wiser to move on in any event in as much as we may have reached a stalemate. But I think in the context stated and implied you can. If so, we may move on as a result as well.

I can, and I have. I can easily be wrong. However the argument isn't if I can be wrong. The argument was if the interpretation of Ra's words by Wilcock is valid. I do not care to convince you of the truth of this or other matters. As far as I am concerned these are our views. Reality has little to do with our views at any rate. And the diversity in our ideas is on the long run a good thing. However, the discussion is if Wilcock understands the Ra material. It is my view that he has interpreted Ra in a valid way which might be different from yours. However to consider him a poor scholar just because he disagrees with you is poor scholarship in turn.

The difference is between validity and reliability. I'm arguing that Wilcock's interpretations are valid. Not that they are 100% reliable, in this universe, nothing is 100% reliable, or... proven for a fact.

As I said before you are a gentleman and a scholar. And I truly appreciate the time we spend together. Your patience with me is well demonstrated. And I'm learning from you. Yours is a better way than the hotheaded approach I might otherwise entertain. And I think over the time I've known you you're slowly becoming something of an example to me. However I think you are misunderstanding Wilcocks point of view and therefore misjudging his value as a scholar.

In the end he may absolutely be wrong. We may all be! However considering the interpretations that are possible I would personally choose wilcocks interpretation myself. I did not have your classical education. I was educated with the crazy weirdness of quantum mechanics and chaos theory. Like I said I think Wilcock recognized a dimension in the Ra material that was sofar misunderstood. This misunderstanding is understandable since the material is years ahead of modern science as it stands today. Let alone the modern science of 20 to 30 years ago.

I am most definately not saying that there are no gradual changes. We can clearly see in our world today that these gradual changes do in fact exist. There can be no doubt whatsoever that your interpretation about these facts is correct. Normal perception of changes today would consider them rapid but still somewhat discreet. However the belief I think I share with Wilcock is that these changes are upon closer inspection also discrete. And this will become more obvious as the universe starts to go from A to B without passing through the middle point. The 2012 shift will be as discrete as it gets.

Is there any other place where Ra clearly states that the changes will be discreet and never discrete?

[Monica]

Wilcock may be wrong. I may be wrong. It is not my argument that I am correct. It is my argument that Wilcocks deduction of instantaneous changes from Ra's words is not clearly invalid, it is not based on a single potentially misspelled word. And it is not contradictory to an enveloping longer period of gradual changes.

I don't think DW's interpretation is invalid as a possible scenario in the possibility/probability vortex. What I object to is stating one possible scenario as the only valid one, and then stating opinions and interpretations as though they were facts. I don't want to speak for Quantum, but my understanding from his posts is that this is one of his main points as well.

Yet one interpretation puts the sentence at odds with scientific understanding the other puts it in agreeance with modern scientific understanding. Does this have meaning to you? Or do you consider this irrelevant?

When using the word discrete vs discreet to describe the entity, I would agree. However, as Q pointed out, if the word were used to describe the movement across boundaries, then discreet might not be incongruent with science after all.

Again, the point being that the issue is subject to interpretation. As long as we are able to discuss the issue with multiple viewpoints, that provides support for the point that multiple interpretations are possible; therefore, imo, any one interpretation, even if it's held by the majority, should not be presented as though it were indisputable fact.

2. Your suggest that "Modern science contradicts that the Universes is not discreet but is discrete" : The Universe(s) is not discreet? If we take this statement at face value we've taken an immeasurable quantum jump from our original conversation as regards "movement being discreet" vs "quanta being discrete" to now that the "Universe is not discreet". How would we know? How would modern science know? What can we say about the Universe(s) dear friend? It is a grand over-reach to even begin such a statement.

No it is not an overreach. You're a physician not a physicist. Therefore I assume you're not informed about quantum physics which states exactly that the universe is discrete.

Does not the UniVerse contain all? (That is, unless, as postulated by M Theory, there are infinite UniVerses! But that opens up a whole 'nother discussion, eh?)

If the UniVerse contains all, and there may even be multiple, or even infinite, UniVerses, then would it not be accurate to say that the UniVerse is beyond a single-word description? Would not the UniVerse, or UniVerses, contain all that IS, both discreet and discrete, and everything in-between and beyond as well?

Again we are back at the point being that anytime we try to pinpoint a single facet of the UniVerse, we are limited in our understanding. The Tao that can be understood is not the eternal Tao.

Maybe, in your view as a scientist, discrete makes more sense in the context. Maybe you are correct that this word is indeed what Ra intended. But, again, that sidetracks the point that it's still subject to interpretation, and as long as something is subject to interpretation, it cannot really be stated as fact, with no room for discussion or disagreement.

For the record, as much as the exercise, I'm willing to consider that The Universe(s) is probably Infinitely and Eternally very, very, very, very discreet. That's why its a mystery. I dare say that the Universes being infinite, and thereby being the sum total of all containing everything, is both discrete and discreet. Wouldn't you agree?

I would unfortunately not agree.

Oh wow, Q just stated what I just said.

When an atom jumps from one position to another it does this in discrete steps, not in discreet steps. When time ticks, this happens in discrete steps, not discreet steps. When water freezes this is a discrete change, not a discreet change. Evolution occurs in discrete steps, not discreet steps. Many of the universes steps are too small for us to register consciously, however the truth of the matter is that modern science considers the events discrete, and not discreet. This is different from the more mechanistic discreet perception that was in favour when you were still in school.

Ah, I see. You are viewing the UniVerse thru the lens of science and measuring it in steps, events, mechanical pieces.

But you are leaving out other aspects like flow, harmony, unity...Why do you focus only on the steps and ignore the flow?

Can we see a species evolve right before our very eyes? No! We can see only the steps, as you say. Yet, if evolution is indeed a fact (I don't want to digress into that controversy), then it is happening right now, even as we speak, but we can't perceive it...therefore its progress could be said to be discreet, while its observable milestones could be said to be discrete.

Respectfully, I find scientific thought to be very useful, but not the end-all. Just because science has not labeled, catalogued, and explained something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because the scientific paradigm views things a certain way does not mean it's the only view.

So I can totally understand where the misunderstandings are coming from. However I cannot agree with your assumptions of discreetness.

I interpreted Q's example not as an assumption of discreetness, but an illustration of how there are multiple possibilities in this vast UniVerse(s).

I may agree that the burst-change will be instantaneous.

I would say: I will agree that the burst-change may be instantaneous.

Yes, and Ra names the 2011 as an appropriate nexus in session 17. So it's not just Wilcock, Ra ALSO asserts this. However, the difference is that Wilcock states it pretty much as fact. And Ra states it as a point of increased likelyhood without actually calling it a fact.

Ah, finally! The root issue, as I see it!

I think this is not a minor difference, but a major difference. I really don't mind if DW thinks there will be an instantaneous shift. He is entitled to his opinion! I might disagree with his interpretation, but who am I to say that he is wrong?

I guess it just sort of rubs me the wrong way when I hear anyone, whether it be DW or some religious leader, make predictions about the future as though they were fact, or state their own personal interpretations as though they were the only valid ones. This just smacks too much of religious doctrine/dogma for my taste.

And, assuming that we all respect Ra for their dedication to avoiding infringement of free will and their reluctance to appear as authority, I marvel that any human would do what Ra refused to do. And yet, humans do this all the time; just look at the world's religions! So I guess that's my main comment about DW's work: I very much appreciate his contributions, and, as I stated previously, I do refer people to his site, as I think there is valuable info over there, but I don't want to trade one organized religion for another. And anytime someone states spiritual interpretations as facts, well, it's sort of become a religion, in my view. I can respect the viewpoints, while rejecting the dogmatic approach.

Therefore it is possible for Wilcock to be wrong. However, Ra's words do not prove that he is wrong. Ra is open to this possibility.

The way I am perceiving this entire discussion, it's not about whether DW is right or wrong.

I am suggesting that both Ra and Wilcock suggest the long term slow changes and both suggest the short term rapid (quantum jump) changes. Both types existing as two sides in the same process.

Perhaps. That is one possible interpretation. But that doesn't address when that quantum jump will occur, or where. Will it occur here? What is here? Will it occur in our consciousness? If so, then, if our consciousness is elsewhere, then it has happened elsewhere, right?

Anyone who has ever had a lucid dream, false awakening, or OBE knows that 'here' is entirely subjective. We exist in an illusion, remember? The Matrix. I think a lot of this debate rests on an assumption that the physical reality exists independent of the collective consciousness. But does it?

Birth and death are not discreet events. And in truth almost nothing in nature is truly discreet. The changes may be minor. But if you look very closely at the points of change. There will always be a radical change from one state to another without passing through a point in the middle.

Birth and death are not discreet events, but a child's growth is...the growth of our hair is...it all depends on whether you are focusing on the points of change or the change itself!!

Discreet is simply when those points are so close together that our human perceptions fail to discern the discrete nature.

Exactly. Why, then, trivialize the human perception of this process? Is it not part of the equation? If the UniVers(s) contain(s) ALL, then does it not also contain our perceptions as well? We know from quantum physics that observation/perception is an important part of the equation.

I can easily be wrong. However the argument isn't if I can be wrong. The argument was if the interpretation of Ra's words by Wilcock is valid.

Maybe my perception of this discussion is totally different from yours, but I have not perceived anyone claiming that DW's interpretations weren't valid. They are just as valid as yours or mine. The question seems to be whether they are more valid than yours or mine, and whether they can be viewed as factual rather than interpretations...and whether it is valid for anyone, whether it be DW, Carla, Ra, or anyone else, to speak with such authority about future possibilities/probabilities in the space-time continuum as though fact.

Reality has little to do with our views at any rate.

I respectfully and emphatically disagree with this. I take Ra's (or was it Q'uo's?) words literally when they said we live in a holographic UniVerse. I have observed in my own life many times in which my perception seemed to alter my own reality and even seemed to change the past. (I suggest reading The Oversoul Seven Trilogy by Jane Roberts for an excellent illustration of this.)

And the diversity in our ideas is on the long run a good thing. However, the discussion is if Wilcock understands the Ra material. It is my view that he has interpreted Ra in a valid way which might be different from yours. However to consider him a poor scholar just because he disagrees with you is poor scholarship in turn.

My perception of Q's objection to the self-professed term of scholar was not so much whether DW 'knows' the material - I have no doubt that he does - but whether anyone can claim to be a scholar of said material. I would venture to say that no one currently incarnate in 3D can accurately claim to fully understand all of the Law of One. I submit that understanding of it is a work in progress for all of us.

The difference is between validity and reliability. I'm arguing that Wilcock's interpretations are valid. Not that they are 100% reliable, in this universe, nothing is 100% reliable, or... proven for a fact.

Then I have no disagreement with you...but only with the presentation (by anyone) of his (or anyone's) interpretations as factual or proven or the only valid interpretations.

Thank you, Ali, for the intellectually stimulating and respectful discussion!

Edit: I just noticed a typo in my quote The Tao that can be understood is not the eternal Tao - I corrected 'cannot' to read 'can' - amazing how much difference that little word 'not' can make!

While I'm at it, variations of this include:

The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao
The Tao that can be known is not the eternal Tao

[Quantum]

[quote=Ali Quadir]
I would unfortunately not agree....When an atom jumps from one position to another it does this in discrete steps, not in discreet steps. When time ticks, this happens in discrete steps, not discreet steps. When water freezes this is a discrete change, not a discreet change. Evolution occurs in discrete steps, not discreet steps. Many of the universes steps are too small for us to register consciously, however the truth of the matter is that modern science considers the events discrete, and not discreet.
...So I can totally understand where the misunderstandings are coming from. However I cannot agree with your assumptions of discreetness.

Thank you for being as patient with me as well Ali. Know that I find the interactions wonderful, as much as the reason we are here. So, please continue. It is difficult for me to respond to this statement as I feel I already have at great length. I will say however how wonderful, beautiful, discreet, and diverse it is that although one writer (me) being read by two different readers (yourself and Monica for example) would read me so differently. Monica could not speak my point better than she did. My interpretation of the Universe(s) is not as mechanical, solid, or physical, as much as it is sublime and infinitely unmeasurable, except through the facility of that which can not be measured...consciousness and faith. We may measure the physical Universe of 3D with our logic and science. But we may never measure the Infinite Universe(s) with these same faculties. The Universe(s) is Infinite and discreet as much as 3D and the Universe(s) may be finite and discrete. But I dare say 3D is within the Infinite Universe(s) and so is also discreet, immeasurable, and infinite.

Here then are two more assertions below. If I may quote my previous post, I offer challenges to these assertion made by the author with the sole interest as an intriguing "Study Mechanism of the LOO in Reverse", which for this moment we might consider as the Wilcockian path dissected. I think it works rather profoundly in fact. It forces us to look deeply at some rather lengthy interpretations offered by the author that have in fact acted as the very core foundations of knowledge of the LOO for many here. Challenging these forces us to look not only more deeply at the assertions, but more importantly at the material.

More Assertions as a Study Mechanism

Sometimes Mr. Wilcock claims he has never professed to be "Thee" reincarnation of Edgar Cyace, but rather that he "only"
bears certain physical resemblances and "patterns of planetary and vibratory influence" as Edgar Cayce? At other times however he clearly unequivocally states "he indeed is the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce"? It seems less than scholarly to contradict, if not somewhat recant or water down, or at least seemingly attempt to back paddle, all while yet attempting to maintain the same solid ground at once. Which is it? (see below)

It is claims such as these that are every bit as confusing, inarticulate, and nonacademic, as is the fact that one day he undeniably claims to be channeling Ra, this while in trance and allegedly channeling Ra no less, and then recanting and restating, presumably when challenged and while not channeling Ra, that he only channels a "fragment of the Ra complex"? But this is not at all what was offered to the world while allegedly channeling Ra. Which is it? (see below)

Is it not reasonable, academic, and inquisitive to search for truths and sources for truths, particularly after reading the words offered by the author himself, and while under trance no less? Does Wilcock believe the source of his own readings if he too seemingly questions or restates them? Is this scholarly and/or seemingly academic? Or is this questionable at best, if not at most unreasonable? How may one offer two opposing arguments simultaneously without creating confusion?

This is certainly not the first assertion made by the author wherein he seems to offer two opposing arguments simultaneously, thereby at least raising confusion (see Ali Quidars most insightful post #123 to Wilcock's semi-instantaneous graduation).

It is in the nature of reasonable, educated, intelligent individuals, as well as a seeker to question what is asked of him to be believed. Why would anyone not question? Why wouldn't one enthusiastically be willing to engage one's mind and dare to engage in discussion and dialogue to any or every claim made that comes to us as though begging to be discussed? Even the Ra Material Itself was presumably struggled with from the start, and still perhaps in some places remains a struggle. This is healthy.

There was never confusion as to Carla's channelings other than, is Ra real or not. Her channelings were and are clean and consistent, thus at least making them easier and or at least more fluid to accept. There has almost always been confusion as to Mr. Wilcock's.

There seems to be no mistake that the Ra Wilcock claims he channels is the same Ra that Carla channeled, this by the Ra message that Wilcock claims he (allegedly) channeled? So when did Wilcock put forward that the Ra he channels is only a fragment of Ra of the same Social Memory Complex (this even reads complicated), verses the same identical identity, but that now it is not the same whole exact identity, but only a portion of it? The message below allegedly channeled by his Ra sates it is the same identity? These sessions of Wilcock furthermore seem to indicate a great convenience for Wilcock in as much as his Ra now needn't conveniently speak as scholarly as before, this due to an immaculate seniority as much as the melding of dimensions and curvatures of space which presumably the Ra of the LOO was unable to tap into or accomplish before when channeled through Carla?

The statement that Wilcock now purports is that he only channels a fragment of Ra, albeit totally contradictory to what "his own Ra purports", as seen below. It is furthermore astoundingly contradictory, in as much as for all the efforts that the Ra Social Memory Complex went through in order to become a "One Unified Social Memory Complex", we are now being asked by Wilcock to believe that only a fragment of this evolution of consciousness either conveniently de-evolved to become a fragment of Ra, and specifically and conveniently only for Wilcock, or that Wilcock is contradicting the Ra channeled words he claims he is a scholar and authority on, which states that it is the same exact identity and social memory complex? This explanation is eerily similar in form, substance, and manner to his claims as being/not being the reincarnation to Edgar Cayce as well. They are certainly most contradictory, rendering them as very questionable at best. He seems to cancel himself out once again, and as seen before.

Let us begin with Wiclcok's Ra

(Chapter 5: Prophecy Fullfilled)
"Had he (Wilcock) been given such information any earlier than this, he may have felt slightly overwhelmed, since he was already aware of the Ra-Ta story and of the fact that Ra had apparently worked with him during the Egyptian / Atlantean period. Hence, on Jan 3, 1999, he was given the following information from his source, and you can almost hear his cry of disbelief as it comes through:

Ra: ....The identity Ra is our identity. We are that social memory complex that you have been striving for. We have desired to speak through this instrument with a maximal desire of increased accuracy and contact for some period of time. We now feel that it is okay for you to be knowledgeable about the nature of the source.....

Wilcock: If this is indeed Ra, why then is it so difficult for me to be able to go deep enough to get your unfiltered guidance? Why is it that I have to do this consciously, when it seemed so impossible for Carla to have done that?

Ra: The curvature of space and time is not yet something that you understand, and yet we were capable of grossly manipulating its distortions so as to produce a whole new affair. This new affair centered around the notion of immaculate seniority.....
It was believed at the time of said readings [namely the Ra Material in 1981] that this situation would be the only ideal circumstance through which contact could be made, but we have found that to be an error. This also has proven to be a venue wherein we are able to continue allowing ourselves to have the messages without needing the elaborate process of deep unconscious trance work. Of course, as you are aware, our messages are filtered somewhat, and thus the end product is not always the same as what you see in said Ra Material.
However, do not doubt yourself in knowing that you have indeed produced much comparable material with us, and that it also is a representation of the blending of foci between our own level and your own. It is through this melding of dimensions that we have been able to take off some more of the scholarly edge that we possessed in the Ra Material and instead turn it into a more completed form in the here and now.”

Now, if Wilcock's Ra said they were Ra, and stated they were the same identity, and identified themselves as the same Social Memory Complex, and the same Ra as channeled in 1981, and now even go so far as to state that they are now more able to produce a whole new affair, and moreover to have been in error that "they could not before produce this affair", why would anyone not believe that it was not offered and layed out by Wilcock directly to the world to not be the same Ra? Perhaps only because much later he explained it away, while not channeling Ra, and when challenged? It certainly was offered by Mr. Wilcock as the same Ra originally. This is clearly stated in the channeled information as opposed to Wilkcocks assertions later that it is only a Ra fragment of the same social memory complex which confusingly calls itself Ra as well? Would the Ra of the LOO be so confusing when they strived so diligently to be anything but? How odd that Ra is now able to grossly manipulate space for Wilockck so as to produce a whole new affair, but was unable to do so before for Carla? And moreover how odd that this bending and manipulating of space is offered so as to produce a seemingly better situation, as it infers, so that the edge of scholarly information has been taken off? This rather reads more as a convenience than an improvement?
(and several lines later)

... "Now that we know that Ra was working directly with Wilcock behind the scenes ..."

"Ra works with Wilcock "behind the scenes". This reads rather nefarious at best, much like the NWO, and illuminati consciousness materials so often addressed by the author? It seems quite clearly stated that this Ra is the same exact identity as the Ra of the LOO. Furthermore as questioned above, why would a social memory complex, which is a unified consciousness, speak as a fragment of itself, i.e. Ra, when it is a whole? I might accept that the Quo social memory complex (SMC) may be a part of the Ra SMC, but find it a stretch for Ra to suggest that Ra is a part of Ra, when in fact Ra strived with such diligence to not create confusion? This in no small manner creates confusion. (please allow this as rhetorical only, as it may stretch credulity to offer the many explanations. I only suggest it creates confusion).

It furthermore strikes me as peculiar if not odd that Ra would seek to de-evolve from their scholarly edge in communication, in as much as in fact it is indeed the scholarly nature of their communication which I believe helped us to be persuaded that this information was clearly a cut and grade far above normal literature and language. Why then "take the edge off"? It is offered, allegedly by Ra, as though a gift to make it easier by taking the edge off. Easier for who? The reader, or the author?

Now Back to Cayce: "I am Edgar Cayce vs I share similarities to Edgar Cayce"

Date: Fri May 26, 2006 12:35 am
Subject: davidwilcock..

" I share a strong vibrational similarity to Edgar Cayce, including facial structure, astrology, character traits and soul purpose..."

and then we have the seeming contradictions:

The pieces start to come together. A higher dimensional being — Ra — is dedicated to the service of the Earth. Ra made their first appearance 75,000 years ago, and worked (speculation) with Edgar Cayce’s prior incarnation Ra-Ta in Egypt 10,500 years ago. There are indications that Ra was the channel that made it possible for Cayce to retrieve such awesome information in his dreams. Ra was received and channeled by Carla Rueckert from 1981-1985 where a lot of parallel and correlative data was brought forward to the Cayce readings.

It seems clearly established as well as just argued under the entire Ra section that Wilcock's alleged Ra claims to be the same Ra. Although Wilcock stated in the beginning that his Ra was the same Ra, he now argues that it is only a fragment of Ra? He cancels what Ra states, as much as he cancels his own prior assertions to the same. Now Wilcock is asking that in addition that we believe he channels Ra, that we believe as well that he is Cayce...well, only sometimes, in as much as at other times he only suggests that he bears similar patterns. (See below)

Chapter 4: Egyption Pyramids/last page-last line before Chapt 5 :
...And in the next chapter we will learn how Ra is still in communication with mankind through the form of the one who once was Ra-Ta and has reincarnated as none other than David Wilcock…

A rather grandiose statement to be sure, but seemingly also watered down by his own words as well. It is clearly stated that Ra-Ta is David Wilcock? Edgar Cayce was, accoding to the Cayce readings, Ra-Ta. Edgar Cayce was affirmed by Ra of the LOO. We may therefore as students of the LOO then believe by inference that Cayce was correct and therefore was Ra-Ta. Therefore if Wilcock was Ra-Ta, he is undeniably claiming to be Edgar Cayce in fact, and not just by similarity.

The circumstances of his own life have led him, often “dragged kicking and screaming” with great reluctance, to the conclusion that he is the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce. He has drawn on information from his own psychic readings, impossibly precise astrological correspondences, dream memories of his life as Cayce and more. And of course, one cannot overlook his amazing physical resemblance to Cayce.

So, he is absolutely certain that he is Ra-Ta, but allows for a certain watering down on the Cayce claims by offering that he only bears similarities to Cayce, which might help him and the audience to deduce and conclude that he may be Cayce, leaving enough wiggle room and doubt in case so as to claim that he never said it, but all the while with full conviction that Ra-Ta is none other than Cayce, and yet that he nonetheless absolutely was Ra-Ta. Does this read as though scholarly, as he so often claims? If one were attempting to double speak, this is exactly what it would look like. It's pretty darn confusing at best. Which is it?

These contradictions are offered not by this writer, but by the author himself, to both claims of Cayce and of Ra. The original question was: are these statements/assertions scholarly as he claims (scholarly:profound knowledge of a particular subject)? It would seem that in only three points brought forward thus far, (1) Spontaneous Shift, (2) that he channels Ra, (3) that he is the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce, that all three are remarkably contradictory as if though canceling himself out by his own hand.

Lest there be any doubt at all as to his self professed authority, lets put that to rest immediately as well. The author himself openly states that he knows more than all of us:

Date: Fri May 26, 2006 12:35 am
Subject: davidwilcock...

"Let's get back to 2012. The science supports the core quotes from the original Law of One material very nicely. It is a very advanced science, and unfortunately I still understand it more than anyone else"

That just about settles that, were there any doubts as to where we stand in comparison. I will happily concede as does Yossarian and others, myself, included, that the author is a wonderful synthesizer of information, and one as 3D rightly points out casts a wide net to the general public. I was always as a result convinced that this is a good amount of work and dedication that is of valuable service. But this is not the question.

If we continue in our efforts as dedicated as we have for the single purposes of the wonderful Study Mechanism of the LOO in reverse that the author offers us, this as a direct result of the sheer volume of the many claims he writes to and makes, we may revel in our dialogue as well as our study. He has, according to some, apparently guided many to the LOO, but I am however not at all convinced that he is either scholarly, or an authority, both of which he claims adamantly and repeatedly. It is in his synthesizing that he shines, but where he speaks as though an authority offering interpretation and opinion that he does not. Trust, it is said, is gained in inches, but lost in miles. For the hard efforts and inches gained nobly, he looses miles in credibility.

Q

[Ali Quadir]

Dear Monica and Quantum.

I guess I can cut through to the heart of the matter. By repeating that Wilcock may be wrong. Like you I do not agree with his assertion that he has proven things beyond a doubt. In my opinion proof does not belong in an empirical universe. Ever.

The initial discussion to me was the status as a scholar for Wilcock, I've tried to stay around that central topic in the discussion. And to me scholar means that Wilcock makes a valid interpretation of the Ra material. "Valid" meaning that there is no error in interpretation each step is made without committing any fallacies. So I believe he does understand the material, and he made no errors in judgment of it. He uses modern scientific insights to interpret the material. Where as people here do not.

This does not mean his conclusion is correct and yours is wrong. There might be all kinds of ambiguity and I don't believe any one of us can know the exact flow of events before they unfold themselves.

It is however the nature of quanta that their movement across boundaries is also discrete. This is physics. Stating anything else would be physically incorrect. The quanta ARE their boundaries. While you are correct that Ra might not have been referring to physics I find it unlikely that he used the words without referring to actual physical events since his description of the densities is exactly a physical description of the universe. It's not symbolical. The attraction that the Ra material holds for me is that it's not a metaphor. It's stating things as they are. Without involving turtles standing on the backs of elephants or something similar.

Now I do not see the universe as a machine as was suggested. I see her as an infinite collection of discrete states. There is very clear boundaries between here and there. I am not you, you are not me. A discreet universe on all levels would be impossible in my opinion because there could be no polarity like there could be no position if there were not a point where the differences become discrete. Discreet is simply the word we use when the discrete changes are too minor for us to perceive. And this has been proven true in everything. Even a growing child grows in discrete steps. Every added cell is an added cell, the cell count for every individual is always a natural number, never a fraction. The universe simply is discrete. The discreet nature you see is illusory. It is not wrong to describe it as discreet. It is just never the whole picture. When you zoom in on any phenomenon at a certain point you cannot zoom in further. The universe becomes grainy and non discreet and acquires discrete behavior. This is the case in all things. This is a property physics has discovered. But this does not mean that I follow a purely scientific understanding. However, if physics and my understanding of the world are not in balance. I do not understand the world or I do not understand the physics.

I will respectfully not go into Wilcocks claims to being the reincarnation of Caycey, reason being that the only thing we can indicate is that there are clear similarities between the two and that Wilcock is influenced by Caycey. This to me is the only meaning of a past life. There is no actual soul connection as it is usually suggested. There is only one soul in this universe. So obviously Caycey and Wilcock share it. But so do you and me. The whole question is pointless in my mind and I've said before that it wasn't the best choice to make this claim public in the first place. It is Wilcocks understanding and I understand why he believes it.

Similarly for Wilcocks connection to Ra. And even Carla's connection to Ra. I do not believe that channeling works exactly as people here suggest it does. I have no problem with considering Wilcocks connection to Ra to be more distorted than Carla's initial connection. But neither are free from distortions. The fact that they come to us through language should make this abundantly clear even to the most ignorant observer. That this results in different versions of Ra is to be expected. As it is clearly impossible for either receiver to contain Ra "As he is"...

I thank you for a respectful and thought provoking discussion. I might jump in later on. But I am not mr Wilcock, I am merely influenced by him. I see no need therefore to defend the points he makes that I do not necessarily agree with, or that I find pointless to defend due to the extreme subjectivity of the matter.

[Monica]

Like you I do not agree with his assertion that he has proven things beyond a doubt. In my opinion proof does not belong in an empirical universe. Ever.

Glad we agree on this point!

I am not you, you are not me.

1.1 Questioner: Do you have a specific purpose, and if so, could you tell us something of what your purpose is?

Ra: I am Ra. We communicate now. We are those who are of the Law of One. In our vibration the polarities are harmonized; the complexities are simplified; the paradoxes have a solution. We are one. That is our nature and our purpose.

10.14 Questioner: For the general development of the reader of this book, could you state some of the practices or exercises to perform to produce an acceleration toward the Law of One?

Ra: I am Ra.

(snip)

Exercise Two. The universe is one being.

It seems that we are both separate and ONE. A paradox? Ra stated that paradoxes have solutions.

1.5 Questioner: (The question was lost because the questioner was sitting too far from the tape recorder to be recorded.)

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define the infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

A discreet universe on all levels would be impossible in my opinion because there could be no polarity like there could be no position if there were not a point where the differences become discrete.

Perhaps the differences are discrete, and the similarities discreet...? Could either term be used to describe the whole? I think not. I think any word can be used to describe only an aspect of the UniVerse, not the whole.

Is the glass of water half empty or half full?

I actually agree with you that discrete was more likely Ra's intended word in that context (unless, of course, the multi-layered nuance of meaning was intentional, for the purpose of getting us to think and to delve ever deeper). But, I've already attempted to clarify that it didn't change my point regarding the validity of multiple interpretations, so I will leave it at that.

Hey, on a related note, check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_vpEyE6rug

This is a BBC video on M Theory. Very cool stuff!

36.4 Questioner: Do I understand from this then that the Higher Self or Oversoul may break down into numerous units if the experience is required to what we would call simultaneously experience different types of catalysts and then oversee these experiences?

Ra: I am Ra. This is a statement we cannot say to be correct or incorrect due to the confusions of what you call time. True simultaneity is available only when all things are seen to be occurring at once. This overshadows the concept of which you speak. The concept of various parts of the being living experiences of varying natures simultaneously is not precisely accurate due to your understanding that this would indicate that this was occurring with true simultaneity. This is not the case.

The case is from universe to universe and parallel existences can then be programmed by the Higher Self, given the information available from the mind/body/spirit complex totality regarding the probability/possibility vortices at any crux.

And, I now submit this for discussion:

20.26 Questioner: I make the assumption that if maximum efficiency had been achieved in this 25,000 year period the entities would have polarized either toward service to self or toward service to others, one or the other. This would have made them harvestable at the end of that 25,000 year period in which case they would have had to move to another planet because this one would have been third density for 50,000 more years. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. Let us untangle your assumption which is complex and correct in part.

The original desire is that entities seek and become one. If entities can do this in a moment, they may go forward in a moment, and, thus, were this to occur in a major cycle, indeed, the third-density planet would be vacated at the end of that cycle.

It is, however, more towards the median or mean, shall we say, of third-density developments throughout the one infinite universe that there be a small harvest after the first cycle; the remainder having significantly polarized, the second cycle having a much larger harvest; the remainder being even more significantly polarized, the third cycle culminating the process and the harvest being completed.


OK, so what do we have here? If everyone became harvestable in a moment in a major cycle, the 3D planet would be vacated.

So, if that happens in 2012, if our entire planet harmonizes in one fine moment of inspiration, being that it's the end of a major cycle, then yes, we'll all go poof and the planet will be vacated.

That's pretty clear, imho.

Now, aside from that, imo remote, possibility, what happens if we don't all harmonize in one fine strong moment of inspiration? We then move to Plan B, also described by Ra in the above quote: the remainder being even more significantly polarized, the third cycle culminating the process and the harvest being completed.

Then, we are back to the question: If the harvest is complete, which presumably it would be, is the planet then vacated? And is that completion instantaneous? How does this reconcile with the other quote in which Ra states that 4D bodies start manifesting thru the normal process of evolution?

I just don't think anyone can conclusively state either position, as there are valid interpretations on both sides. Being that this is regarding a future event, I doubt that Ra would want to state it so clearly that there is no room for doubt. That would be a violation of Free Will, would it not?

Look at how this discussion itself is a catalyst for deeper understanding, not to mention harmonious interaction while disagreeing. Maintaining love and respect while disagreeing...do you people realize how awesome that is??? What we have been doing here at B4, and in this thread in particular, is no small feat! I know from experience that such respectful disagreement is rare indeed, especially when discussing matters of such importance as this small issue of the fate of our planet.

I don't think Ra would have been intentionally confusing, but I do wonder at their choice of words such as the homonym discrete/discreet...I would surmise that there might even be intentional, multiple levels of meaning, just waiting for us to discover.

[Quantum]

Look at how this discussion itself is a catalyst for deeper understanding, not to mention harmonious interaction while disagreeing. Maintaining love and respect while disagreeing...do you people realize how awesome that is??? What we have been doing here at B4, and in this thread in particular, is no small feat! I know from experience that such respectful disagreement is rare indeed, especially when discussing matters of such importance as this small issue of the fate of our planet.
I don't think Ra would have been intentionally confusing, but I do wonder at their choice of words such as the homonym discrete/discreet...I would surmise that there might even be intentional, multiple levels of meaning, just waiting for us to discover.

I just read your entire post Monica, just seconds after posting mine above. We had to be writing at the same moment given you weren't there when I checked this thread before beginning. Your words are right on, all of them, as of course so are Ra's.
Lets not leave him/her/it/them out. Leave it to them to say it better for us. An inspirational posting indeed.

As Spock said many times to all: "Fascinating"....and then individually to Bones: "I feel fine"

Q

[xlsander]

and the same goes for david like for any othe rmessenger - it's about the message -
and I want to deeply thank david for all his efforts for all this time
(even though i haven't learned about him before a few months)!

much love to everyone!

Alex

[Monica]

and the same goes for david like for any othe rmessenger - it's about the message -
and I want to deeply thank david for all his efforts for all this time

I agree! I extend thanks and appreciation to David as well!

[Ali Quadir]

I am not you, you are not me.

Ra: I am Ra. We communicate now. We are those who are of the Law of One. In our vibration the polarities are harmonized; the complexities are simplified; the paradoxes have a solution. We are one. That is our nature and our purpose.
Exercise Two. The universe is one being.[/i]

It seems that we are both separate and ONE. A paradox? Ra stated that paradoxes have solutions.

Exactly, a paradox. I did not get this until I read it in the hitchhikers guide. It's ridiculous but true. And yet another clear warning that guidance comes from strange places.

You cannot see what I see because you see what you see. You cannot know what I know because you know what you know. Anything you see or hear or experience in any way at all is specific to you. You create a universe by perceiving it so everything in that universe is specific to you. (Old man sitting on top of a pole. Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy by Douglas Adams)

Movement across the boundaries is discrete. There is no discreet phase shift between you and me. The IAM which creates this universe by perception exists outside of this universe. All discrete universes that are born from IAM's act of perception/creation are completely separated. This is the multiverse M String theory refers to. However the consequences are not fully understood. There are an infinite number of them each of them is fully separate and connected only through the IAM. When Ra states we are one, he is fully correct. There is only one. One IAM. However it manifests in infinite complexity seeking forever for an answer to a question we cannot even comprehend.

A discreet universe on all levels would be impossible in my opinion because there could be no polarity like there could be no position if there were not a point where the differences become discrete.

Perhaps the differences are discrete, and the similarities discreet...? Could either term be used to describe the whole? I think not. I think any word can be used to describe only an aspect of the UniVerse, not the whole.

Like I said before, discreet is the illusion that happens when the discrete steps are too small for us to perceive.

If we move an object from a to b, then each of the discrete steps is fully separated from the others. The object in A is not the Object in B. Neither is any of the objects in the in between places identical to any of the other objects. Each of these objects has identity and unique relation to the universe. The illusion of discreet movement is caused by the mind.

I actually agree with you that discrete was more likely Ra's intended word in that context (unless, of course, the multi-layered nuance of meaning was intentional, for the purpose of getting us to think and to delve ever deeper). But, I've already attempted to clarify that it didn't change my point regarding the validity of multiple interpretations, so I will leave it at that.

and I accept your choice to do so. Our understanding is limited. My understanding as an incarnated human is necessarily limited. And in spite of correctness our understanding serves a more important function, as a guide. If you instinctively feel your interpretation to be correct. Then that interpretation regardless of accuracy in this case (It's different when we talk about the road from Paris to Rome) is important. You must not replace an interpretation that can guide you by an interpretation that is unable to guide you. No matter how hard uncle ali believes in it...

Ra: I am Ra. This is a statement we cannot say to be correct or incorrect due to the confusions of what you call time. True simultaneity is available only when all things are seen to be occurring at once. This overshadows the concept of which you speak. The concept of various parts of the being living experiences of varying natures simultaneously is not precisely accurate due to your understanding that this would indicate that this was occurring with true simultaneity. This is not the case.

Basically Ra says you cannot judge time from within time.

The case is from universe to universe and parallel existences can then be programmed by the Higher Self, given the information available from the mind/body/spirit complex totality regarding the probability/possibility vortices at any crux.[/i]

Exactly. Higher self or IAM I do not know how this works if we step it up to 4d. I speak about absolutes. Because I am a 3d entity I cannot see how this differs in 4d. Ra uses different words I dare not say he means the same.

Now, aside from that, imo remote, possibility, what happens if we don't all harmonize in one fine strong moment of inspiration? We then move to Plan B, also described by Ra in the above quote: the remainder being even more significantly polarized, the third cycle culminating the process and the harvest being completed.

Basically youre assuming that harmonization equals harvest. I do not think this is the case. Harmonization precedes harvest. And only those harmonized can be harvested to 4d the rest is "harvested" to 3d. The harvest nexus is at a specific point in time those ready before that time have to wait or in rare cases harvest themselves.


I do not believe we have an argument here. I don't see the need for harmonization before the harvest nexus meaning that harvest nexus comes no matter what. However harmonization will greatly affect the outcome for the individual. I am uncertain about where I picked that up but I do not believe the Ra quotes you give contradict this.

I have said it before but there is no harm in saying it again. I owe David a great debt of understanding. His work showed me so much.

[Monica]

You create a universe by perceiving it so everything in that universe is specific to you.

I agree with this.

Movement across the boundaries is discrete. There is no discreet phase shift between you and me.

I understand your viewpoint. I think the difference is one of perception. I was speaking of the movement itself, not the checkpoints along the way. But I think we've both repeated our views, so we might just have to leave it at that. :-/

The IAM which creates this universe by perception exists outside of this universe.

I see the IAM as permeating all that there is. There is no place where the Creator doesn't dwell.

All discrete universes that are born from IAM's act of perception/creation are completely separated.

Separated by what?

This is the multiverse M String theory refers to. However the consequences are not fully understood. There are an infinite number of them each of them is fully separate and connected only through the IAM.

Hmmm...in trying to understand you here...so if the IAM is separate from the UniVerses, as you stated previously, then how does the IAM connect the UniVerses? And, how is it that some entities are able to travel back and forth between UniVerses/dimensions? Do we not all travel to the Dream dimension every night?

Like I said before, discreet is the illusion that happens when the discrete steps are too small for us to perceive.

You say illusion...I offered movement...in either case, is that not also part of the UniVerse? Is not my toe just as much a part of my body as my finger?

[quote='Ali Quadir' pid='2992' dateline='1242940142']
I accept your choice to do so. Our understanding is limited. My understanding as an incarnated human is necessarily limited. And in spite of correctness our understanding serves a more important function, as a guide. If you instinctively feel your interpretation to be correct. Then that interpretation regardless of accuracy in this case (It's different when we talk about the road from Paris to Rome) is important. You must not replace an interpretation that can guide you by an interpretation that is unable to guide you. No matter how hard uncle ali believes in it...

Agreed! My objective here is not to reach a consensus as to what is deemed 'correct' but to engage in stimulating thought. I think all of us can grow/stretch our thinking by delving deeply into the perspectives of others.

Higher self or IAM I do not know how this works if we step it up to 4d. I speak about absolutes.

Do you think 3D has absolute, irrefutable laws governing it? If so, how do you explain when those boundaries of reality are (seemingly inexplicably) crossed, or laws broken? Is there really any such thing as an absolute?

Basically youre assuming that harmonization equals harvest. I do not think this is the case.

No, I was saying that, in order for everyone to be harvested at the same instant, it seems to me that simultaneous harmonization of the entire group must occur. I could, of course, be wrong.

Harmonization precedes harvest. And only those harmonized can be harvested to 4d the rest is "harvested" to 3d. The harvest nexus is at a specific point in time those ready before that time have to wait or in rare cases harvest themselves.

Maybe so. That is certainly a viable interpretation.

So, then, are you saying that those who, say, died yesterday, since it was before that nexus, had to either wait or 'harvest themselves?' How do they harvest themselves?

And, are you saying that you disagree that 4D is already inhabited by those already harvested? That we will all go there simultaneously in 2012?

I do not believe we have an argument here.

I agree! Just a difference in interpretations & perspectives. Thank you for sharing yours!

[Ali Quadir]

Dear Monica, our issues are slowly resolving themselves. As you say it is a matter of perspective

You create a universe by perceiving it so everything in that universe is specific to you.

I agree with this.

Did you understand the information above it? That is very relevant in my point of view. I will repeat it for convienience. in my understanding you cannot see my point if you miss this bit.

You cannot see what I see because you see what you see. You cannot know what I know because you know what you know. Anything you see or hear or experience in any way at all is specific to you. You create a universe by perceiving it so everything in that universe is specific to you. (Old man sitting on top of a pole. Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy by Douglas Adams)

Movement across the boundaries is discrete. There is no discreet phase shift between you and me.

I understand your viewpoint. I think the difference is one of perception. I was speaking of the movement itself, not the checkpoints along the way. But I think we've both repeated our views, so we might just have to leave it at that. :-/

Maybe we should leave it. I understand your position.

There is no discreet motion, motion is what we call the succession of discrete checkpoints. I think the difference is still more than perception here. But thank you so much for not hitting me with a large hammer by now

The IAM which creates this universe by perception exists outside of this universe.

I see the IAM as permeating all that there is. There is no place where the Creator doesn't dwell.

I did not say that. You are of course absolutely correct. I say the IAM exists outside of this universe. The universe exists within the IAM! The IAM is not contained within the universe! It does not fit inside the universe! An infinite zoo of different universes however fit inside of IAM !

Get it ? For those with occult backgrounds: The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu is in the Khabs. (Crowley's book of the law.)

All discrete universes that are born from IAM's act of perception/creation are completely separated.

Separated by what?

By their own exclusion of the other. If you were to see what I see. How could you see what you see? You cannot ever close the distance to me without losing yourself and becoming me. The very fact of you being you makes it impossible for you to be me. This separates the universes within IAM.

There is still a connection through IAM. In fact, the only way for you to truly know me. Is to know yourself.

If the power of this separation would vanish. Then all universes would instantly anihilate and return to the unmanifest. They cannot exist if they are not in some way defined.

This is the multiverse M String theory refers to. However the consequences are not fully understood. There are an infinite number of them each of them is fully separate and connected only through the IAM.

Hmmm...in trying to understand you here...so if the IAM is separate from the UniVerses, as you stated previously, then how does the IAM connect the UniVerses? And, how is it that some entities are able to travel back and forth between UniVerses/dimensions? Do we not all travel to the Dream dimension every night?

Thank you for bearing with me. I think if you grok this you've understood the essence of my lifes study. You don't have to agree with it. Just getting it would be superb! The dream is simply another place in your universe. It is not separated from the universe. IAM is always. There is never a NOT IAM moment. Do you remember one instance of unconsciousness? Or was it always the universe telling you that it exists? No entities can travel between these universes of self. They are merely travelling between different regions in one universe. For example between the astral and physical. If an entity were to travel he would cease to be himself and begin to be another. His old self still firmly in the place he just left! Self is a function of the universe you're in. I cannot see what you see because I see what I see! This is why I considered that bit so vitally important. You cannot become another. You can only ever be you. You in billion forms that is true but you nonetheless. You could become "You that became me" but never "me" because I never was you! ... See the difference?

However, in IAM all is one. I am connects by being the "thing" in which all others exist. It is not an intermediate connection like how roads connect cities. It is how space connects planets.. By allowing them to be a part of it.

Agreed! My objective here is not to reach a consensus as to what is deemed 'correct' but to engage in stimulating thought. I think all of us can grow/stretch our thinking by delving deeply into the perspectives of others.

It would be awesome if you could understand the point I make fully. And then reject it! I would be very happy. As you say consensus should not be our goal. Just momentarily seeing from another point.

Higher self or IAM I do not know how this works if we step it up to 4d. I speak about absolutes.

Do you think 3D has absolute, irrefutable laws governing it? If so, how do you explain when those boundaries of reality are (seemingly inexplicably) crossed, or laws broken? Is there really any such thing as an absolute?

Only in the sense that they must seem absolute to an entity living in 3d such as myself. I don't claim I know the absolute truth. Only that what I see seems absolute. When Ra takes a less absolute description of the situation considering he is 6d this explains why I may mistake some things as absolute while there may be much more nuance there.

I do not believe we have an argument here.

I agree! Just a difference in interpretations & perspectives. Thank you for sharing yours!

And thank you!

[Monica]

Dear Monica, our issues are slowly resolving themselves. As you say it is a matter of perspective

Yippeeee!

Did you understand the information above it? That is very relevant in my point of view. I will repeat it for convienience. in my understanding you cannot see my point if you miss this bit.

You cannot see what I see because you see what you see. You cannot know what I know because you know what you know. Anything you see or hear or experience in any way at all is specific to you. You create a universe by perceiving it so everything in that universe is specific to you. (Old man sitting on top of a pole. Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy by Douglas Adams)

Yes, I understood it and basically agree. That's what I call perspective.

There is no discreet motion, motion is what we call the succession of discrete checkpoints.

Are you referring to physical motion of an object, traveling thru a physical reality? In that case, yes, I would agree. But I was referring to the motion itself, the flow, the energy of the motion. Not in physical terms. Maybe I'm not explaining it well. What I'm trying to convey is that there is far, far more than just a physical description of the UniVerse(s).

I think the difference is still more than perception here. But thank you so much for not hitting me with a large hammer by now

That wouldn't be very nice, would it?

You are of course absolutely correct. I say the IAM exists outside of this universe. The universe exists within the IAM! The IAM is not contained within the universe! It does not fit inside the universe! An infinite zoo of different universes however fit inside of IAM !

Get it ? For those with occult backgrounds: The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu is in the Khabs. (Crowley's book of the law.)

I would say it's accurate to say that the IAM does not fit inside the UniVerse(s), but I wouldn't say that it exists ONLY outside the UniVerse(s). I would say that it exists both within AND outside...everywhere, in all that is. But perhaps you didn't mean 'outside the Universe' at the exclusion of 'within the Universe' - perhaps you meant 'in addition to' but not exclusively? Perhaps I misinterpreted your statement to mean separate from, but not part of, the UniVerse? (Which is how religions see God - a separate Being existing outside his Creation, but not part of it.)

All discrete universes that are born from IAM's act of perception/creation are completely separated.

Separated by what?

By their own exclusion of the other. If you were to see what I see. How could you see what you see? You cannot ever close the distance to me without losing yourself and becoming me. The very fact of you being you makes it impossible for you to be me. This separates the universes within IAM.

At this level of our existence, sure. That'll all change when we become a SMC, eh?

There is still a connection through IAM. In fact, the only way for you to truly know me. Is to know yourself.

If the power of this separation would vanish. Then all universes would instantly anihilate and return to the unmanifest. They cannot exist if they are not in some way defined.

OK I'll go along with that.

Thank you for bearing with me. I think if you grok this you've understood the essence of my lifes study. You don't have to agree with it. Just getting it would be superb! The dream is simply another place in your universe.

So you don't believe in a consensual dream reality? Only a consensual 3D reality?

It is not separated from the universe. IAM is always. There is never a NOT IAM moment. Do you remember one instance of unconsciousness?

Sure. Every night when I go to sleep, I lose consciousness. Sometimes I wake up in Dreamscape. When I lost consciousness, I don't remember it later because I wasn't conscious.

Or was it always the universe telling you that it exists? No entities can travel between these universes of self. They are merely travelling between different regions in one universe. For example between the astral and physical.

What about when you have a dream about someone, and it turns out that they had the dream too? Isn't that a common region that you both inhabit, just as a physical locale is a common region here in 3D?

If an entity were to travel he would cease to be himself and begin to be another. His old self still firmly in the place he just left! Self is a function of the universe you're in. I cannot see what you see because I see what I see! This is why I considered that bit so vitally important. You cannot become another. You can only ever be you. You in billion forms that is true but you nonetheless. You could become "You that became me" but never "me" because I never was you! ... See the difference?

Intellectually, yes. I would even take it a step further and say that the 'Me' of 5 minutes ago is not necessarily 'Me' because I might have had a major spiritual breakthru in the last 5 minutes. Certainly, the 'Me' of 20 years ago seems, in some ways, like a different person. And, since I do believe in reincarnation and have past-life memories, is the 'Me' in that past life the same as 'Me' in the now? It all depends on where you decide to demarcate. Demarcation is essentially arbitrary. There are sets within sets within sets within sets, ad infinitum.

However, in IAM all is one. I am connects by being the "thing" in which all others exist. It is not an intermediate connection like how roads connect cities. It is how space connects planets.. By allowing them to be a part of it.

Physically denoted by the membrane? You and I know that it's much larger than that, of course, but M Theory is a major step towards understanding of the IAM for those that lean towards scientism.

It would be awesome if you could understand the point I make fully. And then reject it! I would be very happy. As you say consensus should not be our goal. Just momentarily seeing from another point.

So glad to agree on this! B4 is such a wonderful place. I participated in a religious forum awhile back, and such a basic concept as 'respect while disagreeing' completely eluded them. I kept trying to convey that point that I didn't care if they agreed or not, but I hoped for understanding, but they could not grasp understanding while disagreeing yet still showing respect. I believe it is a very important concept.

I do understand your point, but I can't say whether I 'agree' or not because the fact is that I don't know. I don't really know where our distinctions lie, and where/when/how our consciousnesses interface and overlap. Who am "I" ...? You say I am a distinct being, distinct from you. I agree that I have distinct characteristics, but I'm not certain exactly where those demarcations lie. Especially being Wanderers, having come from a density in which there was a group consciousness, I cannot say with certainty exactly who or what exactly "I" am, as long as the veil is in place. I have penetrated the veil on one occasion, and I remember it well.

Only in the sense that they must seem absolute to an entity living in 3d such as myself. I don't claim I know the absolute truth. Only that what I see seems absolute.

This is where our perspectives differ. I see very little as being absolute. The more I understand, the less I see as absolute. The UniVerse and its myriad colors, textures, and possibilities seem to get less and less absolute as my time here continues.

PS. I added a few comments to my last post while you were replying to it...you might want to skim over it again.

---

You cannot see what I see because you see what you see. You cannot know what I know because you know what you know.

I think this is relevant to the conversation:

Radiohead: Where I End and You Begin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPclmNZh4...re=related

[Quantum]

And now it is my turn to apologize to you dear Ali for my slow response, albeit that my excuse was perhaps somewhat more enjoyable than in-laws. But not that that's a more excusable excuse mind you...lol. Alas, as admitted before, I am a bit of a hedonist, and had hedonistic tasks to tend to.

As I said before you are a gentleman and a scholar. And I truly appreciate the time we spend together. Your patience with me is well demonstrated. And I'm learning from you. Yours is a better way than the hotheaded approach I might otherwise entertain. And I think over the time I've known you you're slowly becoming something of an example to me.

How very kind of you dear Ali, and likewise good sir the same sentiments expressed from my heart to yours.

I guess I can cut through to the heart of the matter. By repeating that Wilcock may be wrong. Like you I do not agree with his assertion that he has proven things beyond a doubt. In my opinion proof does not belong in an empirical universe. Ever.

Agreed, in a sense. But herein dear Ali I think lies the rub and the heart of the differences in agreement between your Universe and my UNIVERSE(S). You suggest that proof does not belong in an Empirical Universe, or at least one that you give credit to as being Empirical? Definition of empirical: provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. Where else but in an empirical universe does in fact proof then belong? It is the only portion of the universe in which proof may reside?

To my larger point however, I suggest that the (lower case) "empirical measurable provable universe" is akin to the finite universe, but that the (upper case) "IMMEASURABLE UNPROVABLE UNIVERSE(S)" is akin to "THE INFINITE UNIVERSE(S)".This INFINITE UNIVERSE(S) is anything but empirical, and thus incapable of being measured and/or provable, particularly and especially here in 3D? I take it by faith alone that my definition of the UNIVERSE(S) is far and away removed from anything even resembling anything as though provable or verifiable by experience or experiment, and thus that the UNIVERSE(S) is not Empirical, and yet though that there exists a measurable provable portion within it that is empirical which indeed is the finite universe. Utilizing the word "empirical" as relates to the finite universe in and of itself defines what you mean by discrete, in as much as the INFINITE UNIVERSE(S) can not be sensed by the five senses alone, or measured by instrumentation (which is ultimately only again resigned to being perceived by the five senses) or provable by experience or experiment, such then that discreet movements are not only anathema to an empirical universe, but do not even exist. Discreet motion may not even be addressed much less spoken to in an empirical provable measurable universe, as opposed to discreet movement in an Immeasurable Incomprehensible Universe(s). Empirical reasoning cannot here play the role of establishing rational truths, because it goes beyond possible experience and is applied to the sphere of that which transcends it. Pure reason contradicts the empirical, as both thesis and antithesis. This was in a large sense part of Kant's critical thinking as to determining the limits of science and philosophical inquiry. I might encourage you as a student of philosophy to have a look at Kants antinomies for more on this. He nailed it spot on. To close this point, I now agree, given that I now understand better your position and as a result what you are attempting to suggest as requested in your last post to Monica. I can only ask the same of you as regards seeing in the same manner that you request that the immeasurable, unquantifiable, ineffable, Infinite Universe(s), and that includes 6D and beyond to which we may never speak to, in as much as we do not know that Ra is separate and apart from their entire SMC or not, but that we in fact believe they are not and as such are one, and moreover becoming ever more indistinguishable from THE ONE. I dare say that from where we sit, measure, contemplate, and weigh, empirically or otherwise, that it would be virtually impossible for us to "discretely" even come close to distinguishing the differences between 5D and 6D, much less their infinite sub-densities, and that therefore beings in 7D might look like Gods to us if we didn't know better, assuming we do. I would further suggest that the God Omniscience is not only not separate and apart from It's creation as described by yourself when you suggest that He/It is not inside of It's creation, but that only It's creation is inside of Itself, but would instead offer as given by all esoteric teachings, Ra included, that rather all is indistinguishable from ONE THAT IS ALL, i.e. there is no separation, the creation from the created. ALL IS GOD. All is One. ALL IS DISCREET in this context. Do you likewise also see the other position my friend?

Returning now back to the Wilcock assertions as to Ra and Edgar Cayce in post #134 and your responses:

I will respectfully not go into Wilcocks claims to being the reincarnation of Caycey, reason being that the only thing we can indicate is that there are clear similarities between the two and that Wilcock is influenced by Caycey. This to me is the only meaning of a past life. There is no actual soul connection as it is usually suggested. There is only one soul in this universe. So obviously Caycey and Wilcock share it. But so do you and me.

Your definition of the soul and reincarnation are well received. But respectfully Ali (as regards the bold above that you state) we are not discussing your definition of what reincarnation or the soul is. We are discussing what Wilock's is.

.......But I am not mr Wilcock, I am merely influenced by him. I see no need therefore to defend the points he makes that I do not necessarily agree with, or that I find pointless to defend due to the extreme subjectivity of the matter.

We can not, as rightly pointed out by you, say virtually anything as regards such an extremely subjective claim to the matter as you correctly state. But here is the beauty to my post # 134. We needn't. We needn't say a single word whatsoever as to these subjective claims the author makes. Wilcock does it for us. The words in post # 134 are Wilcock's entirely. It is he that raises the contradictions, not us, and he that cancels himself out in his claims as a result. Not us. He speaks for himself, all which is verifiable and memorialized by his hand, not ours. Singularly his. In this context, post # 134 is more rhetorical without answer or response required in as much as it's all been stated in a jumble of contradictions as demonstrated. Attempting a defense or a challenge is hardly as a result necessary. It would be futile in any case in as much as we can't take away what he wrote. Let us instead view the contradictions so that we may draw insight not only to the assertions and their material, but more importantly to the LOO and how they relate to them.

I have said it before but there is no harm in saying it again. I owe David a great debt of understanding. His work showed me so much.

We all agree he has provided a valuable service. I have stated so. You have stated so. 3D has stated so. Monica has stated so. Perhaps all may state so. And perhaps it rightfully needs to be continually restated so that we may in respect use his literature and comments as a Study Mechanism towards the LOO given he has written so much which we may academically question and dissect, as much as we would any other so called scholarly treatise. This is unquestionably the definition of so called scholarly work. No?

You add much to the discussion Ali, as do all. Look what we have shared thus far; fascinating, heady, heavy, and academic, point-counter point discussion. Thank you so very much for participating.

The question posed herein is, what may we say rather "to the very obvious contradictions at his own hand", as opposed to the assertions he makes as regards Ra and Edgar Cayce? They go straight to the heart of the LOO. That has from the onset been my primary focus, i.e. the study of the LOO. I look forward to yours and all other responses to this intriguing Study Mechanism provided by such assertions by the author.

L/L

Q

[Ali Quadir]

And now it is my turn to apologize to you dear Ali for my slow response, albeit that my excuse was perhaps somewhat more enjoyable than in-laws. But not that that's a more excusable excuse mind you...lol. Alas, as admitted before, I am a bit of a hedonist, and had hedonistic tasks to tend to.

What must be done must be done I'd much rather have you have enjoyable excuses than excuses filled with sorrow friend.

I guess I can cut through to the heart of the matter. By repeating that Wilcock may be wrong. Like you I do not agree with his assertion that he has proven things beyond a doubt. In my opinion proof does not belong in an empirical universe. Ever.

Agreed, in a sense. But herein dear Ali I think lies the rub and the heart of the differences in agreement between your Universe and my UNIVERSE(S). You suggest that proof does not belong in an Empirical Universe, or at least one that you give credit to as being Empirical? Definition of empirical: provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. Where else but in an empirical universe does in fact proof then belong? It is the only portion of the universe in which proof may reside?

Perhaps this means there is no absolute proof positive of anything Empiricism also requires falsifiability. Anything that is potentially falsifiable can never be 100% established or proven truth. This is not a matter of debate. This is the philosophy of science. There is no way that truth can ever be known with 100% accuracy.

The word evidence is the word we should use whenever we are tempted to use the word proof.

You've understood and identified this precisely my friend. You reap the clear benefits of a classical education If I told my colleagues about Kant they'd call me a religious nutter Kant argued exactly the point I was trying to make. Because it is impossible to judge the greater infinite universe. It may very well be that the so called evidence we see with our eyes and that is so convincing that we call it proof positive is only a local effect and has nothing to do with the greater reality at all...

The world is causative, meaning that it has causative effects, however it is not defined by causality meaning that if you use only a causative understanding of it your understanding is necessarily incomplete.

So "proof positive" as Wilcock calls the evidence for his arguments is an overstatement that does not belong in the world. Proof positive cannot possibly exist.

However Kant does not argue for the discreet nature of the universe. So I won't follow you there. I remain firmly fixed in my assumption that the universe is a discrete phenomenon that our minds interpret as discreet. Just like the flow of time is a phenomenon created by us. Not by the universe itself.

There is no actual soul connection as it is usually suggested. There is only one soul in this universe. So obviously Caycey and Wilcock share it. But so do you and me.

Your definition of the soul and reincarnation are well received. But respectfully Ali (as regards the bold above that you state) we are not discussing your definition of what reincarnation or the soul is. We are discussing what Wilock's is.

I agree, and since my definition is not his I find it pointless to argue this point on his behalf. I don't disagree with the man. I just think his understanding is needlessly linear. Just like those who would oppose him. If you wish to argue this I would suggest you find another who would take the role. I respectfully decline the invitation but if anyone here is willing and able to take up this role I will not stand in the way of a discussion that I consider myself incapable of partaking in.

.......But I am not mr Wilcock, I am merely influenced by him. I see no need therefore to defend the points he makes that I do not necessarily agree with, or that I find pointless to defend due to the extreme subjectivity of the matter.

We can not, as rightly pointed out by you, say virtually anything as regards such an extremely subjective claim to the matter as you correctly state. But here is the beauty to my post # 134. We needn't. We needn't say a single word whatsoever as to these subjective claims the author makes. Wilcock does it for us.

Claims you interpret through your subjective perceptions. If I cannot and will not serve as his advocate and no one else will then effectively you have assigned yourself judge and jury and there will be no fairness or depth in your judgment. It will simply be the statement of your opinion. While it is very possible that you are correct. There is no counterbalance. In my opinion judgment should be restrained in these cases. But again I will not stand in your way in this. I am not Wilcock and while I love him as one of my own he has his own cross to bear.

I have said it before but there is no harm in saying it again. I owe David a great debt of understanding. His work showed me so much.

We all agree he has provided a valuable service. I have stated so. You have stated so. 3D has stated so. Monica has stated so. Perhaps all may state so. And perhaps it rightfully needs to be continually restated so that we may in respect use his literature and comments as a Study Mechanism towards the LOO given he has written so much which we may academically question and dissect, as much as we would any other so called scholarly treatise. This is unquestionably the definition of so called scholarly work. No?

Of course. This is not a lions pit. This is a forum for intelligent individuals who are both compassionate and seek the ways of wisdom.

The question posed herein is, what may we say rather "to the very obvious contradictions at his own hand", as opposed to the assertions he makes as regards Ra and Edgar Cayce? They go straight to the heart of the LOO. That has from the onset been my primary focus, i.e. the study of the LOO. I look forward to yours and all other responses to this intriguing Study Mechanism provided by such assertions by the author.

I do not think so. I think they go straight to the heart of your specific interpretation of the Law of One. Christians often make the mistake of speaking for God, and recreating him in their own name. We must be careful that we do not abuse Ra in the same manner.

[Quantum]

The question posed herein is, what may we say rather "to the very obvious contradictions at his own hand", as opposed to the assertions he makes as regards Ra and Edgar Cayce? They go straight to the heart of the LOO. That has from the onset been my primary focus, i.e. the study of the LOO. I look forward to yours and all other responses to this intriguing Study Mechanism provided by such assertions by the author.

I do not think so. I think they go straight to the heart of your specific interpretation of the Law of One. Christians often make the mistake of speaking for God, and recreating him in their own name. We must be careful that we do not abuse Ra in the same manner.

You misunderstand my point then. Nothing in post #134 is specific to my interpretation to the LOO? Nothing. It is specific to the contradictions as to claims made by the author regarding himself, which involve the LOO?

As for the analogy of Christians speaking for God, I'm confused. Am I the Christian or God in this analogy, or is it the other way around that the unnamed author is god and I the christian?

....tongue verrrrry deeeeeply in cheeek my friend...I couldn't help it...hope it made you smile as intended ((()))

But your point is well taken that you need not defend him. Of course not. No one asked this in any event as is seen clearly in my statement proceeding yours as regards not speaking to assertions, in this case, as opposed to contradictions. Thank you again Ali in any case to your participation thus far, but which as you express may exclude this topic. I will post another very shortly at which point you are encouraged to jump back in as you stated previously. To coin a phrase that I can't remember where I read before, your participation provides a most stimulating "catalyst"...lol

A Very Happy and Safe Memorial Day to all....Have fun. Its time for me to go and play some more, this time in Sunny California for a few.

Q

[Ali Quadir]

A Very Happy and Safe Memorial Day to all....Have fun. Its time for me to go and play some more, this time in Sunny California for a few.

Enjoy yourself my friend I will sit back and step in when a topic comes by I can participate in.

All I am saying is that we must be careful in assuming our own interpretation to be the only possible one. Fortunately we have each other to help us find our balances.

[Monica]

All I am saying is that we must be careful in assuming our own interpretation to be the only possible one.

That pretty much sums it up!

[Quantum]

All I am saying is that we must be careful in assuming our own interpretation to be the only possible one.

That pretty much sums it up!

Exactly. It has been one of the entire points of focus.

I have but only a quick sec to post this before I dash for a few days for Memorial Day, but commit to following up more on my return.

Here is the exact contradiction found that was written by the author, at his own hand, yet seemingly explained in an entirely differently way by the author "while not" channeling his Ra", and as was given in 2005, six years later after the original 1999 claim that he was channeling Ra (see below). Which is it?

Here is the 2005 disclaimer where Wilcock stated his Ra is not the same as the Law of One Ra :

(excerpt)

DW: Well, first of all, Ra should not be referred to as a "he;" Ra is a sixth density social memory complex - an entire planet of entities fused into one singular consciousness. So I prefer plural words like "they" even though it is one consciousness, because that consciousness is not male or female, but both. It's tempting to want to assign a gender and a personal identity but this is, again, the trappings of our third-density mindset.

>however, i'd like to know if Ra has a negative side (different Ra) are there negative entities of originals?

DW: The Ra that spoke through the Law of One series was as bullet-proof as any channeling ever done, in my own opinion and that of many others as well. Within that philosophical system, Ra resides in a level where there is no negative OR positive. Both paths actually fuse together for a perspective that is still positive, compassionate and loving. The main point is that it has integrated the lessons of the negative path so that they are not drawbacks, but actually improvements in the overall portfolio of understanding.

Now you have to draw a clear distinction. There are indeed other channelers who have used the term "Ra" in their work - it's one of the known Egyptian names and therefore likely to appear. My initial assumption going in would be that other channels who use the name Ra are NOT in contact with the same Ra that spoke in the Law of One series. I myself do not connect with the entire "social memory complex" as was done in the Law of One contact, but with my Higher Self, which happens to be one focal point within that complex - a point that has aspects that are clearly identifiable as my personality, albeit in a more timeless context.

and then we have once again, as seen in post #134, as given in 1999, six years before:

(Chapter 5: Prophecy Fullfilled)
"Had he (Wilcock) been given such information any earlier than this, he may have felt slightly overwhelmed, since he was already aware of the Ra-Ta story and of the fact that Ra had apparently worked with him during the Egyptian / Atlantean period. Hence, on Jan 3, 1999, he was given the following information from his source, and you can almost hear his cry of disbelief as it comes through:

Ra: ....The identity Ra is our identity. We are that social memory complex that you have been striving for. We have desired to speak through this instrument with a maximal desire of increased accuracy and contact for some period of time. We now feel that it is okay for you to be knowledgeable about the nature of the source.....

Wilcock: If this is indeed Ra, why then is it so difficult for me to be able to go deep enough to get your unfiltered guidance? Why is it that I have to do this consciously, when it seemed so impossible for Carla to have done that?

Ra: The curvature of space and time is not yet something that you understand, and yet we were capable of grossly manipulating its distortions so as to produce a whole new affair. This new affair centered around the notion of immaculate seniority.....
It was believed at the time of said readings [namely the Ra Material in 1981] that this situation would be the only ideal circumstance through which contact could be made, but we have found that to be an error. This also has proven to be a venue wherein we are able to continue allowing ourselves to have the messages without needing the elaborate process of deep unconscious trance work. Of course, as you are aware, our messages are filtered somewhat, and thus the end product is not always the same as what you see in said Ra Material.
However, do not doubt yourself in knowing that you have indeed produced much comparable material with us, and that it also is a representation of the blending of foci between our own level and your own. It is through this melding of dimensions that we have been able to take off some more of the scholarly edge that we possessed in the Ra Material and instead turn it into a more completed form in the here and now.”

So, there you have it. And these Ra messages and communications to the author are even in a more completed form no less?

Again, the original alleged channeling states that it is the same identity, not a portion of it. Even the author, at the time, seemed to be dumbstruck with awe at the fact that he could contact the "Same Ra" in a waking state, yet while Carla could not. And why could he? Because presumably Ra made an error , but then also because the curvatures of space and time had changed? Which is it? Well, under this explanation one must suppose both apparently, and then some, while in as much one must also allow that Ra couldn't know that the curvature of time and space would change but that they do know that 2012 is a definitive date? Why even ask the question if it's not the same Ra? Why be dumbstruck if it is not and was not presumed and presented as the same Ra? Those that followed the author "in the day" were never made aware of the fact that this Ra was not the same Ra, but in fact led to believe it was the same Ra. The explanation that this Ra was not the same Ra, but only a portion of his higher self and Ra is simply contradictory as even regards the time-line of six years later (1999 to 2005) of this explanation as compared to the original posting. Although what he synthesizes is not necessarily contradictory, his claims and assertions and opinions are. This just is questionable and just is contradictory.

Once again, a safe, fun, and enjoyable Memorial Day with family and friends to all us "Yanks" out there, and to those of you that aren't, a wonderful weekend.

Q

[Solo Maters]

I used to be a member of David Wilcock's Ascension 2000 Forum called "asc2k" but decided to quit for alot of the same reasons that have been pointed out here. I also agree that talking about these points serves as a great study if done for that purpose and if its done correctly. There were and are many of his members on his "asc2k", just like here, that admit they haven't read the Law of One material for themselves. They obviously get their information from him and rely on him instead of relying directly on themselves, or the Law of One themselves. Its the lazy way, but people do it with everything from politics to religion to health. But that's what I read as exactly the point and danger being made here.

There's alot of information he states that seems really off base, and then others that are just 100% completely wrong.

On Edgar Cayce as a Co-dependant:

RE: [asc2k] Re: Wow... OK! / new Cayce stuff
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:24 PM
From: "David Wilcock" <djw333@insightbb.com>To: asc2k@yahoogroups.com

I see now how the curse of codependency dragged Cayce down, as well as the entire group that had formed around him....In my case as Cayce I was too late. I did not have the time or the desire to listen to those voices. I was too busy, had too many aspirations. In the aftermath of my failed attempt to build this awesome hospital, where everyone could gather together to get medical readings from me and heal, I felt destroyed. I rebuilt myself with a chorus of yes-people who, This basically led to the last decade of my life being enmeshed with more and more supporters gathering regularly around me, once a week or more.

If you read Harmon Bro's books about me, (which we DID point out in the Reincarnation? Book, to the chagrin of Cayce purists), you can find out that towards the end of my life, I believe that I basically started going senile and got a little demented.

He definitely states in this passage that he is Edgar Cayce, not that he just has similarities like he does at other times. But he psycho-analyzes one of the greatest psychics that ever lived and calls him dysfunctional, and more, and then goes on to do the same thing to his support staff? How in the world could he know if he was dysfunctional, much less his staff, much less why would he even say it? As wrong as it is, and as off base as it is, he isn't even qualified to make a psychological analysis, much less do it over 60 years after the fact? I don't think even a qualified doctor could do this. I agree that this kind of stuff doesn't make him seem scholarly or authoritative.

On Jesus as a Codependent:

[asc2k] Re: on being true to oneself
Sunday, January 8, 2006 10:20 PM
From: "Tobey W" <asc2k@wheelockweb.com>To: asc2k@yahoogroups.com On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:38:35PM -0500,

David Wilcock wrote: You have very deep, subconscious Judeo-Christian biases that seem to take a literal interpretation of Jesus' way of martyrdom and turning the other cheek as being the ultimate truth. Again, though the reptilian brain may hiss in horror at this Law of One principle, Jesus was basically said to have LACKED wisdom in his self-martyrdom. This was HOLDING HIM BACK from being able to evolve into fifth-density. I am not reading my own bias into the material here; that is what it says.

"Tobey W" wrote: This comment is much like another that was posted about a month ago: On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 01:03:03PM -0500.
David Wilcock wrote: Jesus being a 4D Wanderer who was not quite able to let go of the self-martyring / codependent aspects that would have allowed him to ascend to fifth-density understanding.


"Tobey W" wrote: While it is certainly true that martyrdom lacks wisdom, and that martyrdom may not be the highest or purest course for any given incarnation, there doesn't seem to be any basis in the Law of One material for saying that Jesus's martyrdom held him back from evolving into fifth density, or that he was unable to let go of codependent aspects that would have let him ascend. Perhaps there is such a basis; if so, please point me to it. What I have found, instead, seems to affirm that Jehoshuah/Jesus completed the task for which it/he incarnated (session 84), and that it/he is now in fifth density (session 17).

This quote, from session 84, seems especially relevant:
Questioner: The instrument asked the following question: Ra has implied that the instrument is on the path of martyrdom, but since we all die are we not all martyred to something, and when, if ever, does martyrdom partake of wisdom?

Ra: I am Ra. This is a thoughtful query. Let us use as exemplar the one known as Jehoshua. This entity incarnated with the plan of martyrdom. There is no wisdom in this plan but rather understanding and compassion extended to its fullest perfection. The one known as Jehoshua would have been less than fully understanding of its course had it chosen to follow its will at any space/time during its teachings. Several times, as you call this measure, this entity had the possibility of moving towards the martyr's place which was, for that martyr, Jerusalem. Yet in meditation this entity stated, time and again, "It is not yet the hour". The entity could also have, when the hour came, walked another path. Its incarnation would then have been prolonged but the path for which it incarnated somewhat confused. Thusly, one may observe the greatest amount of understanding, of which this entity was indeed capable, taking place as the entity in meditation felt and knew that the hour had come for that to be fulfilled which was its incarnation. It is indeed so that all mind/body/spirit complexes shall die to the third-density illusion; that is, that each yellow-ray physical-complex body shall cease to be viable. It is a misnomer to, for this reason alone, call each mind/body/spirit complex a martyr, for this term is reserved for those who lay down their lives for the service they may provide to others. We may
encourage meditation upon the functions of the will.

He not only analyzes Edgar Cayce from over 60 years ago, he analyzes Jesus from over 2000 years ago as well? How does he do it? And then he analyzes and interprets the Law of One 100% wrong. And then he goes on to say he that "its unlikely that there are very many discrepancies in my understanding of the material that will start emerging upon critical analysis." It was already pointed out in his own words that he says he knows the material better than anyone else.

David Wilcock on David Wilcock
RE: [asc2k] Re: on being true to oneself
Saturday, January 14, 2006 7:42 PM
From: "David Wilcock" <djw333@insightbb.com>To: asc2k@yahoogroups.com

David Wilcock wrote:
...I do not want to be put on a pedestal, but in all fairness, it is also
unlikely that there are very many discrepancies in my understanding of the
material that will start emerging upon critical analysis

....I get disheartened sometimes because it seems like I just can't run a clean enough game, ethically speaking, to not invite more of these greetings. I try very, very hard, but at the stage I'm at there's no more Law of Grace...I am fully accountable for EVERYTHING because there is NOTHING that I do not know about how the law functions. That's the thanks you get for being a scholar of Truth!

He is, and has been very wrong, and teaches things as a result that are very wrong. But whats unsettling is not only how completely wrong he can be, but how 100% he is sure he knows everything, even when he is wrong.