What is the difference between...

[Cobrien]

Teach/learning and teach/learning for other-selves? How can we maximize (the effectiveness of) our teach/learning without learning for others?

Group-individuated consciousness is that state of sharing understanding with the other distortions of mind/body/spirit complexes, which are within the evident reach of the mind/body/spirit complex individual or group. Thus, we are speaking to you and accepting both our distortions and your own in order to enunciate the laws of creation, more especially the Law of One. We are not available to many of your peoples, for this is not an easily understood way of communication or type of philosophy. However, our very being is hopefully a poignant example of both the necessity and the near-hopelessness of attempting to teach.

Each of those in this group is striving to use, digest, and diversify the information which we are sending this instrument into the channels of the mind/body/spirit complex without distortion. The few whom you will illuminate by sharing your light are far more than enough reason for the greatest possible effort. To serve one is to serve all. Therefore, we offer the question back to you to state that indeed it is the only activity worth doing: to learn/teach or teach/learn. There is nothing else which is of aid in demonstrating the original thought except your very being, and the distortions that come from the unexplained, inarticulate, or mystery-clad being are many. Thus, to attempt to discern and weave your way through as many group mind/body/spirit distortions as possible among your peoples in the course of your teaching is a very good effort to make. We can speak no more valiantly of your desire to serve.

• Demonstrating the original thought is done through either learn/teach or teach/learn. I have become more cautious of sharing LOO philosophy. I find a general trend of the ideologically possessed to attempt to replicate their beliefs in the minds of others. Sincere intent to seek does not necessarily have the refection of teach/learn.
  
  
• The concept of initiation was done by teach/learners, who were life students or learn/teachers. Communicating a philosophy without experiential understanding is quite useless. In this case understanding forms the premise for the subjectivity of perception which gives credence to the subject of free will.
  
  
• It is not necessary to know the Law of One, as Ra delivered the slant, to be harvest-able.
  
  
• In my search for understanding various disciplines developed. More importantly there is an accumulative crystallization of knowledge by seeking to understand 'group mind/body/spirit distortions'. This takes the form of mythology and cultural markers of understanding. People assume there is nothing to learn from the past. Yet it is by the past we arrived to the present. Karmic cycles are indicative of the future. By understanding the Law of One (not necessarily Ras slant) we may evoke higher principle to divest certain cycles such as war and poverty.
  
  
• Natural seeking of love eventually leads to wisdom. Constantly seeking 'why' or 'how' you think is a good place to start. By being single -minded in your intentions paradoxical notions of reality as both subjective and objective confluences takes place.