The Detuning of Session 17 and Ra's True Intentions Regarding 2011 - Part II

[Tenet Nosce]

don asked the date of harvest, Ra said 2011, even if don was totally out of his mind at that point, Ra was not.

I am sorry, but this is totally wrong. Don said 2011, and Ra failed to correct - or not correct - him, such as the case may be.

What Ra DID in fact say is: The harvest is now. And they did not correct this, as according to your view, they should and they would have. At the least, don't you think they would have anticipated this confusion we see before us in this forum? Or is this, too, another unforeseen consequence?

I understand there is a lot flying around this thread, but you seem to be losing sight of the fundamental issue raised here. And though you have made some valuable assessments, you have sort of dodged this core issue.

The syntax of this particular query is a great example of how confusion naturally follows from an improperly worded query. I don't know why I am explaining this to you. Ra's response is extremely precise. This is exactly NOT a casual conversation between two old friends. You appear to be talking past yourself on this particular point.

Let me break this down:

Questioner: Am I to understand that the harvest is to occur in the year 2011, or will it be spread out?

1. Am I to understand...? Is Don to understand? Who is determining what Don is to understand and what Don is not to understand? Certainly not Ra. Ergo, confusion.

2. The harvest is to occur in the year 2011. In the year. Hmm. What if it begins in 2011, and persists until 2012? This portion of the query is partially true and partially false. More confusion.

3. Or will it be spread out? Well, actually, it could be BOTH in the year 2011 AND spread out. As many have forwarded. You cannot deny the logical possibility of this. It is what it is. Confusion again.

So now, Ra has to respond. What Ra has to do is offer the most precise response that takes into account the totality of logical possibilities from the query. Due to the utterly confused wording of the query, the amount of valuable information Ra can offer is greatly restricted. And what do they ACTUALLY say? Not that harvest is in 2011. They say:

1. This is an approximation.
2. We have stated we have difficulty with your time/space.
3. This is an appropriate probable/possible time/space nexus for harvest.
4. Those who are not in incarnation at this time will be included in the harvest.

Note #3 actually says time/space nexus. Not space/time nexus. So therefore I am assuming this doesn't apply to the time period that we would refer to as "2011".

Note in #4 "at this time" could mean in 1981 when the query was made, or in 2011 at harvest-time. I believe this is directly relevant to the side conversation about hybrid entities.