divinecosmos hacked again

[yossarian]

that is the extreme end. had he done it, he would be switched to the other side of the spectrum completely.

it says aggrandizement of self, specific information, reduces polarity there, and compromises the channel. situation fits what is described there.

You seem to think that anything anyone does in 3D is STS regardless of intention.

This is at odds with the definitions of polarity that Ra gives. Polarity is defined by intention and cannot be measured from outside by acts.

Ra: I am Ra. It is unlikely that there is a more pithy or eloquent description of the polarities of third density than service-to-others and service-to-self due to the nature of the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions towards perceiving concepts relating to philosophy in terms of ethics or activity.

You can't judge someone's polarity by looking at their actions. Only their intention matters.

It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity

You are trying to figure out if someone is STS or not by looking at the nouns and verbs they are using when they speak. This isn't going to tell you anything because the words they use do not determine polarity, the intention of the words determines polarity.

Have you read Carla's blog? The entire thing is about herself and like 3 other people. Does the focus on her self make it STS? No. The intention determines polarity and her intention in writing the blog is to share herself and her life and her perceptions, for the benefit of everyone.

David's intention with his blog is similar, and so naturally David talks about himself.

It's not STS to talk about yourself.


I completely disagree with

no its not my 'opinion'. i have taken it from Ra's definiton of ego as we know it in our own society. there is nothing in Ra material that links the ego to body consciousness. if so, i would like to see the part that does it.

Ra says the term ego is too confusing and doesn't use it. Why are you using it?

Questioner: Can you tell me how you balance the ego?
Ra: I am Ra. We cannot work with this concept as it is misapplied and understanding cannot come from it.

a member of society complex Ra

A human can't be a part of a social memory complex. David is not part of a social memory complex.

His higher self is part of one.

, and someone who is able to channel Ra in a conscious basis, he is not with L/L Research group, who had to quit Ra workings because a team member has left.

why, if david wilcock is such and such a person who is not only edgar cayce reincarnation, but someone easily channeling Ra consciously, not working with l/l group at this time ?

Your basic assumptions about metaphysics are not in line with standard accepted theory. They aren't in line with Carla's views on the issue that she outlines in Channelling Handbook, and they aren't in line with the ancient wisdom teachings that have been passed down since pre-history.

Channelling is not as simple as one entity speaking to another. The spirit world is like fire and spiritual contacts are highly variable.

No one, not now, not ever, will ever be able to channel the exact same entity that Don/Jim/Carla channeled. That contact and the entity that came through is specifically dependent on those 3 people at that time in their life, at that location, and on the specific nature of the world, and the specific nature of Ra. It's actually inaccurate to look at it like a telephone connection to a person. It's more accurate to see it as a creative work that is generated based on intersecting energy patterns.

Unless those energy patterns are perfectly replicated again, the same entity will never be channeled.

If someone else unconsciously channels Ra, Ra will use different language and a different style and speak about different things. Because the contact is not just Ra and never is and can't be. It's a big amalgamation of energies of the moment that produces the material and it's highly unique.

There has never been a case where two earth entities channeled a higher being in exactly the same way. The higher being always comes through slightly differently because the channelling process is not truly a telephone, it's a collaborative creationary process. The more that the channeller is able to put himself aside, the less of himself will be in the contact, but it is impossible to completely put himself aside and this would not be desirable anyway in achieving the goals of the channelled material.

A conscious channel will have more of himself in the channel by necessity - that is the very definition of a conscious channel.

You define polarity differently than most.

What I get from the LOO is that polarity is defined by intention, and two people can do the same action but one will have an STO intention and the other an STS intention. By looking at the action alone you can't know their inner polarity.

Polarity is not related to material ethics or material behaviour in my way of looking at this. You can't just observe David speaking about himself and conclude that he is compromised. You can't even observe one slipping of the contact and then conclude that he will be forever compromised with no hope of redemption.

People go through cycles between emphasizing different aspects of their being. I just don't see things nearly as black and white as you do.

Also every criticism you make of David Wilcock can easily be applied to the conscious channellings of Carla. All conscious channellers have to deal with the fact that the contact has more of themself in it. I find it interesting how you never apply any of this critical thinking to Carla's Q'uo but are so quick and unhesitant when it comes to attacking other channellers' material.

---

Once you wander you are no longer 6D, Ra would no longer be Ra. The wanderer would be fully human.

Ultimately all separation is an illusion.

And yet here we are, seemingly separate.

Likewise for the relationship between the 3D human and the 6D higher self.

It's just the paradox of unity/separation. There is apparent separation because creation itself is dependent on some level of separation, and yet in truth All is One.

I'm not trying to pick here, but these two statements are a bit of an oxymoron; the first states separation, while the second says otherwise.

Just to be clear, I agree entirely. The point is that Ra, as a 3D Wanderer, is always Ra. A subset of the energy pattern, contained within the whole.

It's strange to me that you haven't noticed this oxymoron already. Ra calls it an apparent paradox.

This oxymoron between separation/unity is like the main point of the Law of One. Separation exists between entities - different entities with different names. Separation exists between densities - different densities with different names. And yet all is one.

I'm not the one who brought up this paradox. Ra did. And before him, millions of mystics have brought it up again and again. It's not a new idea...