Just to add, I spotted relevance in yesterdays Daily Quo Channeling.
--------------
Carla: Yeah, one more. No prejudice intended—could your answers not possibly be more direct and to the point, being as we here on the Earth plane think that way? Do you understand?
Q'uo: I am Q’uo, and we are not certain that we grasp your query. Could you find another means of stating it?
Carla: No. Thank you anyway.
Q'uo: I am Q’uo, and we shall speak to that which we feel we grasp. Our responses are tempered by two features of this illusion, the first being the limitations of the instrument and the language with which it is familiar; the second, being more important, and that is the free will of each entity, so that as we speak in response to any query, we give that which will inspire thought, rather than that which will completely sate the hunger, wishing not to do another’s work for that entity, for it is the work that is the value of the decision-making and the choosing.
May we speak in any further way to any other query, my sister?
----------
and then a bit later on....
----------
Carla: Just sort of a left turn into the question about why can’t you speak more simply? Let’s see how to put this. I realize that you want to teach and not do our learning for us. There are often teachers around that give you a very simple—and something you can hold onto—type of answer, and they seem to have real success in being able to deal with spiritual questions a lot of times. Does the infringement of free will sort of “catch up” to you after awhile, is that what you’re saying, when the spiritual student goes over these own issues himself, looking basically at what you have said just for principles that he can use as resources … that the student has then done a better job than if the student just heard somebody that was absolutely brilliant just telling him everything, and said, “Okay, I’ll believe that”? There is a difference between those two? If you both have the same belief in the end?
Q'uo: I am Q’uo, and am aware of your query, my sister. In a large part, you are correct. However, we are as we are and we must, in order to remain true to that which we are, speak in the way in which we speak when given the constraints of the language, the ability of the instrument, and the free will of those to whom we speak. There are many teachers. There are as many teachers as there are entities and experiences, and each will teach with a certain voice, a style that will be unique to that teacher. Those words which have value to the student will find their way to the student’s heart. This is why we always recommend that each student discriminate those words and concepts which we offer, and forget those that have no meaning, saving only those which ring of truth for that entity. We recommend that each student find those teachers with which the student is comfortable, for all teach and all learn.
Is there a further query, my sister?
Carla: No. I thought that that was a really helpful answer. Thank you very much.
--------------
Carla: Yeah, one more. No prejudice intended—could your answers not possibly be more direct and to the point, being as we here on the Earth plane think that way? Do you understand?
Q'uo: I am Q’uo, and we are not certain that we grasp your query. Could you find another means of stating it?
Carla: No. Thank you anyway.
Q'uo: I am Q’uo, and we shall speak to that which we feel we grasp. Our responses are tempered by two features of this illusion, the first being the limitations of the instrument and the language with which it is familiar; the second, being more important, and that is the free will of each entity, so that as we speak in response to any query, we give that which will inspire thought, rather than that which will completely sate the hunger, wishing not to do another’s work for that entity, for it is the work that is the value of the decision-making and the choosing.
May we speak in any further way to any other query, my sister?
----------
and then a bit later on....
----------
Carla: Just sort of a left turn into the question about why can’t you speak more simply? Let’s see how to put this. I realize that you want to teach and not do our learning for us. There are often teachers around that give you a very simple—and something you can hold onto—type of answer, and they seem to have real success in being able to deal with spiritual questions a lot of times. Does the infringement of free will sort of “catch up” to you after awhile, is that what you’re saying, when the spiritual student goes over these own issues himself, looking basically at what you have said just for principles that he can use as resources … that the student has then done a better job than if the student just heard somebody that was absolutely brilliant just telling him everything, and said, “Okay, I’ll believe that”? There is a difference between those two? If you both have the same belief in the end?
Q'uo: I am Q’uo, and am aware of your query, my sister. In a large part, you are correct. However, we are as we are and we must, in order to remain true to that which we are, speak in the way in which we speak when given the constraints of the language, the ability of the instrument, and the free will of those to whom we speak. There are many teachers. There are as many teachers as there are entities and experiences, and each will teach with a certain voice, a style that will be unique to that teacher. Those words which have value to the student will find their way to the student’s heart. This is why we always recommend that each student discriminate those words and concepts which we offer, and forget those that have no meaning, saving only those which ring of truth for that entity. We recommend that each student find those teachers with which the student is comfortable, for all teach and all learn.
Is there a further query, my sister?
Carla: No. I thought that that was a really helpful answer. Thank you very much.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)