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

[unity100]

yes. that must be it ! Ra must be allegorically referring to don's subconscious ................. and this is why they gave a direct answer of 2011 to a direct question asked by don ...

A "direct" answer indicating an approximation. Furthermore, the term Harvest was used to denote both individual harvest and planetary harvest. And, other statements must be reconciled with this one...such as "harvest is now", etc. So the answer isn't quite so 'direct' and clear as you seem to think.

Maybe to you, because you seem very certain about your own interpretation. But that's all it is: your interpretation. If Ra's words were as direct as you think, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. (We wouldn't even have this forum, for that matter.)

i noticed that because you have not attended these recent 4 threads, you are reiterating all the discussion points we already have gone over. instead of referring you back to those threads, i will make a summary here and just point you to this post if the same points occur.

- 'harvest is now' is moot, since Ra has mentioned that the negative entities that were already dead circa 1981 'could be harvestable'. not 'harvested'. if harvest was 'then', then they would say that they were in the process of being harvested, or harvested.
- there is no planetary harvest of any kind mentioned in the material. if you mean cyclic harvest as opposed to an individual contacting intelligent infinity within the cycle, there is nothing to be reconciled with these
- a direct answer to a direct question is a direct answer. when there were multiple levels in information, ra always elaborated. or mentioned that there was more to that, but they could not elaborate. so, 2011 date is 2011 date as such.
- there isnt ambiguity in the term regarding harvest. it is well defined, even to its mechanism in time/space after death.
- ra did not approximate our dates with their understanding of time. many times, ra mentioned they were not part of time, therefore doing an estimate upon their perception would be totally irrelevant. in all cases in which this planet was involved, they used our estimates and periods. 2600 bc was not '5 quants before this eon', and 100-700 years time period estimate was not 5 manik and 7 larkin to 3 juan. it was in OUR years.
- we would be quite hung up on 2011, because the material we are studying explicitly gives that date, and some people who trust the material have problems with it. if they didnt have this much problem, we would really be not so hung up on this date.
-

Which goes back to the question I asked in the other thread: Just why do we trust the Mayans so much? How sure are we that they aren't negatively influenced? Yes, you did answer my questions, unity100, but not satisfactorily. I am not impressed by parlor tricks. The Mayan Calendar might be nothing more than a parlor trick.

I'm not saying it is. I'm saying we really have no way of knowing, and in light of that, should we be putting so much faith into it?

i have given historical information, info about the traits of mayan/south american societies to the point of agricultural tendencies, connecting a lot of things together. if these are parlor tricks for you, i can come up with a lot of ridiculing adjectives for for a behavior that tries to interpret a direct answer to a direct question as a 'grand interpretation in metaphorical presentialization of multi-layered meaning denial'.

then there would be no point to discussing.

No problem. I don't believe in cold hard truth.

yes. however it just doesnt go away with not believing in it, or declaring 'holographicness'.

I get the impression from you that you see entities as separate from one another, and unable to affect one another. How does this fit into the concept of unity/oneness?

unity/oneness you speak about is not something that comes into practice before mid 6d. otherwise, there would be no wars, no 2d, no 3d, no 4d, no maldek explosion, no this, no that.

referrals to a future point in time does not change the properties that this density was created with.

and, in that density you cannot just 'influence other entities through oneness' to make them 'awaken and progress fast'.

there were a lot of attempts which wanted to do that, they even used technology, and you see what the result is.

[quote']
You cannot know that it is a minority, any more than I can know that it isn't.
[/quote]

no actually i can. ranging from how people in third world countries - which constitute majority of world population by the way - live, think, what they do, what are their choices in regard to politics and philosophies and religions, crime rate, traditions and many more factors, i can easily have a good picture of whats going on in the world.

you cannot have that picture by just looking at what goes on in your relevant circles in usa, and on internet however. just land in anywhere south or east of europe, and you will see little from that awakening of yours.

i wish it was to the contrary.

I don't agree here. I don't believe in preordained fate. Only from the perspective of the Creator is it already preordained. From our perspective, we still have to live it, so we still can affect what happens, and we still can affect others. We all affect one another. We aren't isolated, with a clock ticking inside, and powerless to change it. Sure, the timing will work out as preordained, according to the Creator's timetable, but as far as WE are concerned, we DID affect what happened and when, by our free will.

your 'affecting others' take the form of making them skip 3d lessons. making them 'awaken' and whatnot.

you wont be able to do that. just look back at the spiritual history of this planet and the 'aid' that was attempted.

- "oh, i just want you to progress so much. look, here, i have this kind of vibration,i have this information and ....."
- "ok let me totally skip living an entire 3d, and just jump to 4d just because you got these stuff"

it doesnt happen.

I'm not disputing any of that. I'm disputing whether there will be a transition time, in which Wanderers may stick around for a bit, to help with the transition. And I see value in the visions of these Wanderers, which you seem to readily dismiss as insignificant.

i dismiss them as infringing. in the 'transition time' you speak about, the wanderers would already have infringed upon the very founding of the 4d on this planet.

And yet, Wanderers DID come here...for a reason...which supports the idea that they DO affect others, clearly.

the reason for that was named as 'lightening the vibrations of the planet', which was apparently especially meant to alleviate the problems the discrepancies in 3d vibrations and 4d vibrations generate.

so far, they seem to have succeeded.

and aside from their own incarnational lessons, offering themselves for service to 3d entities, based on whose call they came here. not call of 4d entities which were yet unborn.

Sure we can, and we do. We ALL do, including you. You have simply twisted it in a different direction than, say, Icaro. But both are twisting, to make up for missing pieces.

i did not make for any missing pieces. as an example, even though tenet asked how could the situation of the 3-4d entities after mass deaths be handled, i told that i didnt have an answer, and i reiterated that we shouldnt try to twist information we have to make up for what we dont.

please dont claim that i did things which i have not.

The mistake is in thinking that the info is complete. It isn't.

the mistake is in trying to invalidate what we actually have complete, as incomplete because we cannot make up for the incomplete parts, or we dont like the complete ones. and this thing has been going on for 4 threads.

No one is disputing that they will die. The dispute is regarding when they will die. You seem deadset on the idea that death will happen, on a global scale, very soon. You also seem to imply that anyone contesting this, has issues about death or is uncomfortable with it. Well hell yeah! Why wouldn't we be?

i am not dead set on anything - no wait, actually there is something i am dead set on :

arguing against total rewriting or neglecting or denial of existing uncomfortable information or, heaven forbid, trying to invalidate 90% of the information through various made up means just to negate that piece of information - when we dont like it. and indeed, i do call that there is some bias involved if people do that, for 4 threads' duration to boot. if a person goes to 4 threads' length to go around some information, and in the end ends up proposing something that would invalidate 90% of that information, without knowing what they are doing, and then STILL cant follow on their proposal by invalidating 90% of the information due to their actual strong belief and trust in the material, you say that there is some bias involved. especially if all these happen without the person not budging their position at all.

But aside from that, the bottom line is that one interpretation is as valid as another.

ok. then i reinterpret and propose that the 'i am Ra' sentence was prefixed to all of the questions by a negative entity. validate this. i can argue for 4 threads, defending that in the same fashion.

This is where you and I disagree. I believe in multiple timelines, at any given point. You've already explained your view on that, so no need to repeat (unless you want to); I'm just saying, that this is a huge part of why we have different ideas on how it's all gonna go down over the next few months or year. And, it explains why your 'clear' and 'logical' explanations don't cut it for me or some others, any more than Icaro's theories cut it for you. We're all coming from different paradigms and ne'er the twain shall meet.

icaro's isnt a theory. it is an attempt to negate a piece of information he doesnt like, and invalidating 90% of the material in the process. but because he doesnt want to invalidate all of the material but just that few quotes he have kinks with, he introduces a lot of subjective measurements that he instantly performs, gauging the purity level of questioner, negative influence level on the contact and so on.

Presupposing that's what happened ("got caught up in the heat of the moment"). OR, you could simply be wrong...and those Wanderers are doing those things because...those things are very important to their mission.

have you seen any case of a wanderer scenario in the material for any wanderer incarnating in a lower density than its own, into 4d, 5d, or 6d ?

no.

and, if there is a huge number of these people, who have a very strong vision of the future - a future that's peaceful and harmonious, its NOT this planet's future. its their vision.

It could be both. They are not mutually exclusive.

they are mutually exclusive. otherwise we wouldnt have laws of free will, veils, quarantines and so on. free will of entities in regard to choosing the influences upon them just do not end with 3d.

If their vision is in alignment with the planet's, then there is no infringing, but it is all simply part of the process.

it is still infringing. it is learn/teaching on other entities' behalf. whatever vision 4d entities have, its their honor/duty to realize that vision. not interlopers which think that they should barge in.

NOT "heal it in their frenzy"! HELP the newly harvested entities heal it! Which, again, may be the intended mission. Apparently it's not your mission, because you don't feel that inclination. However, some of us do. And you cannot tell us that we're "caught up in sentiment" because one entity cannot know the mission of another.

excuse me, im not making these up my ass. in the process of validating the inclinations, you are promptly ignoring a lot of important information that is in the material you are studying, as i demonstrated above. ranging from free will to quarantine to no wanderer phenomenon in densities higher than 3d to learn/teaching with entities in HIGHER densities than 4d happening in sleep periods in 4d.

I'm referring to those Wanderers who feel it is their mission to stick around and help. Those who don't feel that mission, will likely leave, no problem.

yes. and the others who 'want to stick around' will just be let, at the cost of totally infringing themselves on this planet's present and future.

one would think that the logos of this locale would tighten the veil and introduce various strong measures to prevent entities from so easily being contacted and influenced by even entities dwelling in higher densities than theirs, after the light veil experience in venus - oh wait - logos actually did that.

there must be a reason for that.

Man, what's with the "barging in"? No one is "barging in."

if you say so ...

Aha...I see why we are disagreeing. You seem to be indicating that if it wasn't explicitly mentioned by Ra, then it "can't" happen. (Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding you...haha I know you will!)

Whereas, I am open to many possibilities beyond those that Ra has mentioned.

Case in point: There may be other ways of calling, besides those explicitly mentioned.

it cannot happen, due to mechanisms of free will. these wont change even when Ra passes away from this octave, or this octave ends.

entities which are yet not even born into a 4d planet which they dont even know that is going to be positive or negative, cannot call other entities pre-emptively to that planet.

you cant just drop in in 3d end, and then claim that you have been called - the ones calling you and allowed your incarnation were not 4d entities - they were 3d entities. and when they are gone, the call numbers go away.

No, they are the same entities! They were 3D and are now 4D!

They called. We came. You cannot know for certain, that we didn't agree to stick around a bit longer. Or we might even have renegotiated in the past 30 years.

incorrect.

4d harvestees from other planets, were 4d harvestees from OTHER planets who didnt start incarnating until circa 1981. 4 harvestees TO BE from this planet, are yet NOT harvested.

in either case, they will be incarnating in veil-thinned 3-4d transitionary bodies, and they will be able to quite easily use the 'learning from disincarnate teachers during sleep' facet 4d density and its bodies offer.

if they call, a teacher will come in their 'sleep'.

Sorry, but that happens all the time. We ALL do that. There is no way any of us has the 'perfect' understanding of the Law of One, without any twisting or conforming to our own biases. Anyone thinking they have the 'pure' understanding, without any bias, is deluded, in my opinion. Just isn't possible.

Even what you call "basic spiritual principles" may seem "basic" to you, but are not agreed upon by all of us. Therefore, there is no way for any 1 person to claim to have the "correct" interpretation.

excuse me, but i will have to call nonsense on trying to label totally denying a direct answer to a direct question like the one in subject here, as any kind of 'interpretation' or else.

as i said, i claim that 'i am Ra' prefix was prefixed onto answers by a negative entity. and i can discuss that it is as such in equal strength for 4 threads with the invalidations icaro has used.

accept this as an interpretation then.

Yeah, well how many of us have done that? Probably not very many. Most of us are too busy out there in the world, trying to fulfill our missions.

all entities react to the unchangeable during harvest. since everyone is harvested at the end of last cycle in 3d, regardless of incarnated or disincarnate, however disoriented or disarrayed they may be to the extent that they may be even unable to contact their higher self, everyone will get a good chance in that contact. in the presence and with the aid of harvesters from the NEXT octave to boot.

Isn't that...infringing? What if those entities don't want to have their suffering "ended" just yet?

if so, they would have not incarnated in an 3d sphere which was about to end in a known date, and instead they would go to planets which there would be proper suffering for them.

---

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.

which evaluates to harvest being in 2011. 'this is an approximation'.

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.

excuse me, why we are on that quote, AGAIN ? this is the nth time we have iterated through this. i dont know you are just selectively non-perceiving it or just get stuck on that quote because some others were unable to let go of it for the sake of their own arguments and reiterated it like there is no tomorrow.

let me clear it up :

- negative inclined entities from third reich, including himmler and goering are queried, two of which are already DEAD, some of which were alive by 1981. ra answers that these entities MAY BE HARVESTABLE. if harvest 'was then', in 1981, ra would say that these entities were BEING harvested, or HARVESTED. yet, they were mentioned as probably harvestable as negative. this means, harvest did not start yet, and the harvesters which are to asses harvestability of entities by placing them in their violet ray body, were NOT there yet.

- ra would say that harvest WAS happening at that point in time if it was. there is no simpler way of putting it. 'harvest is now' is no different from the phrase 'a balrog is come'. it is a phrase in english that informs of imminency. same with 'it is upon us'.

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.

it is a two phased question which can be answered by answering either. it is a common occurrence in our daily life in all languages, and i rarely seen anyone getting so confused by it up till this point.

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.

if it begins in 2011, and persists until 2012, it means that it still happens within a year's duration or so, fulfilling the 'in the year' phrase. it also would fulfill the 'approximation' factor.

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.

deny the logical possibility of this ?

i have explicitly told a FEW times that, the phrase above evaluated to a harvest happening WITHIN a year, within the estimate range of 2011 vicinity, with the approximation being in the measure of years, but not taking a year.

excuse me, but, you not only have read these, but also responded to me when i told these, at length.

and here you are, telling me that i cant 'deny' something i myself has openly declared approx 2 threads before and repetitively after.

what do you expect me to do at this point ? do you see any logic in me continuing discussing with you ? it would be illogical if i dismissed discussing this with you at this point ?

you are SO overindulged in this that, it seems you are not remembering what you yourself have discussed with someone else a few times in succession, and still trying to force confusion into the quote. maybe you shouldnt force yourself too much to squeeze water out of stones.

i dont know the reasons for this. but, in this practical state, i would be totally illogical for me to keep on discussing with you.