6D Wanderers: 3D Lessons?

[Quantum]

as for hypothetical analysis, i already have posted my view on this, just a few posts above. when a wanderer which havent changed its polarity dies, it would still maintain the polarity and vibration of its own natural density.

Your changing the hypothetical question, as well as the channeled reading of the two 5D STO wanderers by answering a different question, and with an answer which by logic and the Ra quotes must be incorrect no less. It makes no sense. Will you allow me to show you why?

But back to the thought experiment question as a teaser to prelude first: in this hypothetical thought experiment, what happens to our two 5D STO Wanderers who Wander into 3D, and who although haven't changed their positive polarity at deaths door, have nonetheless accidentally reduced it? But they didn't reduce it enough to remain stuck in 3D. Rather than our two friends who accidentally went negative and therefore graduate into 4D negative, these two graduate positive and do so by ending up in 4D positive. How did they get from 3D to 4D other than by Harvesting? Did they just defy the process and will themselves there? If the truth is the truth in pattern, the question is not just a hypothetical. It would operate under the same principle. The LOO texts are easily able to answer this through the harvest answer. This is a prelude and foundation to what must be the truer answer imho as you will see.

the key is not being negative or positive, it is having changed polarity, nullified their polarity and then increased it in the other direction.

But this is not the question. The question is what would happen in the same case but without going in the other direction. How would they get to 4D positive from 3D positive but through harvesting?

similarly, it can be said that if a negative wanderer nullified its polarity, and then went positive, they would probably also get harvested and subject to harvest.

OK. Now I'm confused? And we agree no less. They do get harvested? Good. So, it seems we've taken care of that little confusion then. That's progress. Discourse is good. Now we're presumably only left with two special conundrums of (1) Wanderers on death return to their home density, but do so by not getting harvested, and (2) the new conundrum that has suddenly surfaced that wanderers from 5D, and if who screw up, are not wanderers by your statement, but if they don't screw up, are? This little jump in logic presumably also holds true for 6D as well, i.e. if they screw up they weren't really wanderers either, in spite of the fact that Ra said they were. Who are we to believe in both cases? Am I clear so far?

And here is the crux demonstrated once more upon which the axis of your logic turns: Lets see if we may run it through the filter to see what shakes out. Ra seeks harvest from sixth density to seventh, but 6D wanderers do not get re-harvested in order to return to home density, but seemingly just return home nonetheless without the need to settle into the light most suitable for them, which is the definition of harvest. Lets break it down into sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub, ad nauseum, densities of 6th home density from which the wanderer in question came from. Surely if said wanderer de-polaorized, even in infinitesimal factions thereof, it would need to find its new sub-density to the billionth fraction of the new sub-density in order to return to 6D. How do you propose our friend the wanderer accomplishes this but through a harvest of stopping at its most suitable light but through a harvest?

And to the converse, if:

52.9: The Wanderer, if it remembers and dedicates itself to service, will polarize much more rapidly than is possible in the far more etiolated realms of higher density catalyst

How do you propose that the 6D wanderer in question finds its newer home density "in the far more etiolated realms of higher density catalyst," which was in fact one of its primary purposes for having wandered into 3D to begin with, if it does not undergo the same harvest process to the new etiolated density it sought to achieve?

I remain confused unity. I rather assumed the 6D wander wandered for a purpose, which most certainly was not to return to its home density, but to polarize to a newer and higher etiolated density? In short, you insist that when a wanderer dies which hasn't changed its polarity, that it will return to its home density. One would hope that the 6D wanderer would never return to its home density. It runs the risk of always depolarizing a wee bit to a great deal, or hopefully better yet increasing its polarity a wee bit to a great deal more, but almost certainly never returning to where it originated from, thus necessitating a HARVEST to get to its newer density, whether greater or lessor.

actually, telling these entities wanderers is a bit off place

It is as interesting to note that you are assisting Ra, as well as all of us here at B4th, for which I'm sure there might be some who surely thank you and support you, for clearing up any confusion that the Ra Social Memory Complex may have created, this by making it clearer that their naming these two as STO Wanderers from 5D might have been an error on their part.

i sense veiled sarcasm in the above block ....

o-o-o-o-p-s-a-la. I guess ya got me there . Please allow a bit of brevity and humor into the discussion.

can you call an entity which gone negative in polarity to the extent of being negatively harvestable, a STO wanderer from 5d ? the term 'STO' there, would be a bit off place, wouldnt it.

I don't have to. Ra did. I'll confess that I make it a habit to study the LOO unity. How can I or you study it if we refute it first? It makes for rather bad study habits. May I suggest that we study it far better before becoming so invested into ourselves that we assume to know better than Ra? This has in fact been the entire crux of my subtle attempts towards establishing dialogs with you unity. You have seemingly by impression creatively reinterpreted, if not refuted, as demonstrated herein above, as well as on other occasions more than a few sentiments of the LOO. Perhaps one day in above mid 6th Density at a minimum higher than Ra, either of us would be in a better position to consider same. I'll take my chances on the LOO for the moment then as opposed to employing either of our feeble minds to answer your question, at which point I hope your question would be moot, for Ra having been correct.

May we close the conversation as it seems there is little more to add to or to dispute given the logic of the Ra quotes that 6D wanders must harvest to go higher, much less lower, and that their purpose was/is to never return from exactly where they came from? Let us retreat then to return to the Infinity discussion where we may continue there for only a bit more as well as it too is also fast drawing to a close.

You are serving much and offering much to all of us for the fascinating views you express. It sharpens the pencil, if you will.

...L/L...

~ Q ~