David Wilcock

[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