Transient, Sustained and Eternal

[Bring4th_Austin]

The context of the "grass that blooms, withers, and dies" quote that has been posted deals with Don asking about the specifics of channeling groups being greeted by negative entities and how to remain a "pure" channel. Ra responds: "To give you this information would be to infringe upon the free will, or confusion, of some living. We can only ask each group to consider the relative effect of philosophy and your so-called specific information. It is not the specificity of the information which attracts negative influences; it is the importance placed upon it."

[Edit: Minyataur beat me to it as I was writing this post. ]

While they're speaking about negative greeting in this context, I think it seems natural to extrapolate this to the discussion about how a focus on "specific information" has an effect on both the tuning of a channel, but also in the focus of our seeking processes. I think what Ra is saying is just a simple way of talking about the effect isn't in the nature of the information itself, but in how the seeker relates to the information.

So I suppose, hypothetically, a channel could focus on stock market predictions and the Kentucky Derby winner, but if their orientation towards that information was purely spiritual in nature, there would be no detuning in the channel nor the entity's path. But that's only considering an individual's path of seeking isolation. Once that individual seeking becomes collective - they are sharing the fruits of their seeking with the world by some means - the nature of that sharing contributes to the tuning of the information and the path. The focus for the individual/channel/group might be purely on the eternal qualities of the transient information, but if the sharing of those fruits includes the surface, "transient" details, it could serve more as a distraction than an aid for those who it is being shared with. I'd guess this is why Ra seemed to dissuade Don from the "unimportant" details - not because they can't also be seeds for seeking of the eternal, but because of the potential effect on those who might receive the information from the contact. Of course it's natural that if the eternal is explicitly sought in the questioning, it is easier to keep it in focus for the material as a whole. (It also seems natural that a genuine seeking of the eternal would probably display as explicit in the questioning.)

This is kind of considering the specific type of seeking/sharing that is channeling, in which information is received and shared (and hopefully integrated somewhere along the way). But I think it's a fruitful line of thinking to consider - that our focus, interpretation, and sharing can mean one thing to us, yet mean something entirely different to another. How we choose to share the fruit of our seeking can't get lost in the shadow of the intention of our seeking.

[Aion]

From what I am reading from everyone here, I do believe we are brushing the touchstone.

76.9 Questioner: Is there, in Ra’s opinion, any present-day value for the reuse of the tarot as an aid in the evolutionary process?

Ra: I am Ra. We shall repeat information. It is appropriate to study one form of constructed and organized distortion of the archetypical mind in depth in order to arrive at the position of being able to become and to experience archetypes at will. You have three basic choices:

You may choose astrology—the twelve signs, as you call these portions of your planet’s energy web, and what has been called the ten planets.

You may choose the tarot with its twenty-two so-called Major Arcana.

You may choose the study of the so-called Tree of Life with its ten Sephiroth and the twenty-two relationships between the stations.

It is well to investigate each discipline, not as a dilettante, but as one who seeks the touchstone, one who wishes to feel the pull of the magnet. One of these studies will be more attractive to the seeker. Let the seeker then investigate the archetypical mind using, basically, one of these three disciplines.

After a period of study, the discipline mastered sufficiently, the seeker may then complete the more important step: that is, the moving beyond the written in order to express in an unique fashion its understanding, if you may again pardon the noun, of the archetypical mind.

Although this is given in the context of the disciplines offered by Ra, I think that concept of a "touchstone" denoting something which draws you like a magnet like an apt.

Also, with the options of the three disciplines here I can't help but think... starter Pokemon!

[Patrick]

This yearning between Eternal and Transient, one for the other, is also probably reflected in our everyday lives.  Information on the news yearning for its spiritual side and the spiritual information yearning for its down to Earth applicability.

Maybe a properly balanced society would not differentiate so much in between the two ?

[Aion]

The Eternal can choose whether or accept or control the Transient, I suppose. Or is it the other way around, maybe?

[Sacred Fool]

Although this is given in the context of the disciplines offered by Ra, I think that concept of a "touchstone" denoting something which draws you like a magnet like an apt.

  
FYI, a touchstone has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetism.  It's a type of rock used in conjunction with acid to test the purity of a gold sample.
  

[Aion]

Although this is given in the context of the disciplines offered by Ra, I think that concept of a "touchstone" denoting something which draws you like a magnet like an apt.

  
FYI, a touchstone has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetism.  It's a type of rock used in conjunction with acid to test the purity of a gold sample.
  

For someone who so likes poetic expression, that is rather literal of you.

That's true, it's more like a "test of genuinity" used in ye olde days and probably still for metals. At least, that's one meaning for the word.

1: a fundamental or quintessential part or feature : BASIS

2: a test or criterion for determining the quality or genuineness of a thing

3: a black siliceous stone related to flint and formerly used to test the purity of gold and silver by the streak left on the stone when rubbed by the metal

Makes you wonder where Ra got their definition of touchstone from. I feel like they were likely leaning more to the first definition there. Seems like a wave towards the "spiritual gravity" to me.

[Sacred Fool]

For someone who so likes poetic expression, that is rather literal of you.

  
Ha ha.  Yeah, well, perhaps I have more than a single tool in my tool box?  Also, fyi, touchstones are very much in contemporary use in pawn shops.

Anyhow, on this little item, here's my guess.  I think you're reading "feel the magnetic pull" as an appositive when Ra is actually adding two different thoughts together; viz., dig into this stuff seriously (a) as one who seeks truth which passes the sniff test and (2) as one who wishes to surrender to the consequential tides of blind trust which may carry you through the keyhole and into a strange new landscape.  (I made that florid for your benefit, old fellow.)
  

[Aion]

I would imagine the poetic expression is, as Ra likes to do, to get the group to think for themselves. "Talking through a veil" can have that effect. The interpretation is the journey.

[Sacred Fool]

It's just that with channeled material, it seems that requesting what is considered transient detunes the channel.  I'm not sure what the rules are, but there seems to be rules governing this sort of information exchange.

That makes logical sense from more than one perspective. Anytime you veer from a particular focus, or water down that focus with related foci, it gets less "in tune" with the original focus.

  
I just want to add the thought that it might be more accurately put that the focus of questioning is not the main thing (as Prof. Elkins frequently was baffled in that regard without seeming to harm the connection), but it's the focus of polarity which is the main source of enlivening current which makes deep connection viable in channeling....or even in internet posting.......sometimes?............maybe?
    

[Aion]

It's just that with channeled material, it seems that requesting what is considered transient detunes the channel.  I'm not sure what the rules are, but there seems to be rules governing this sort of information exchange.

That makes logical sense from more than one perspective. Anytime you veer from a particular focus, or water down that focus with related foci, it gets less "in tune" with the original focus.

  
I just want to add the thought that it might be more accurately put that the focus of questioning is not the main thing (as Prof. Elkins frequently was baffled in that regard without seeming to harm the connection), but it's the focus of polarity which is the main source of enlivening current which makes deep connection viable in channeling....or even in internet posting.......sometimes?............maybe?
    

What makes you think that? (Not disagreeing, just curious as to your reasoning.)

Is that to suggest that "unpolarized people" would be incapable (or perhaps uninterested) of channeling? How does one measure the polarity of others?

I am also curious, since Ra claimed to be of no polarity, would polarized seeking always lead eventually to a contact of no polarity? Whether positive or negative?

[meadow-foreigner]

I am also curious, since Ra claimed to be of no polarity, would polarized seeking always lead eventually to a contact of no polarity? Whether positive or negative?

Even more interesting is the statement that, according to Ra, the sinkhole of indifference between the two polarities is actually detrimental to the so-called harvest. In other words, in the actual circumstances polarization is required; yet "far ahead" in mid-6D it is neutralized, so to speak.

[Raukura Waihaha]

I feel like there are alot of misconceptions surrounding the idea of positive, negative and balanced.
It seems most associate positive with STO and negative, STS.
Too much of either results in a snap back effect, so maybe an integration of both polarities is necessary to achieve balance, which is the 6D perspective.
Indifference is what occurs when we misunderstand balance and unconsciously fluctuate between the two polarities IMO.

[Louisabell]

So is the transient important? Yes, in that it is part of the path. But also, and I think this is equally important, why not have some fun along the way? We are in this world, and it is rich with endless experience. Why limit oneself to only one way of thinking, one way of experiencing. One's consciousness is what it is at any given moment. I personally am pretty detached from the human drama, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a well-made movie or go to a MUFON meeting and have fun hearing someone speak about UFOs.

I like the idea of naturally, organically, moving along one's path, because that is—in my view—more accepting; whereas limiting oneself to just the "eternal" may involve resistance of the transient. One eventually, naturally, moves away from the transient—so allowing that organic process is perhaps the best way to progress.

Is the transient important? I deem that the transient is important in that it is essential, for without it there can't be the non-transient, just like without darkness there is no light. The non-transient will always be intertwined with the transient in a realm of polarity.

I was more speaking to how transient information is not only transient against the backdrop of cosmic happenings, but that it is also transient in our own lives. It is to be consumed and then left. Sure, one can choose to consume more content of similar quality and do that ad infinitum. But even in that case, was any specific piece of transient information terribly important if so readily interchangeable with another? And I think this is more where the question on importance lies. It's not that important to know any specific data point of the transient, is it? I agree that a transient piece of information could act as "prompt" into moving into the eternal, but if that was going to happen to someone anyway, then no doubt there is a wide choice of transient information that could have succeeded in doing that.

So there is the question on focus, because when we are dealing with transient information, we are talking about data points that explode in numbers and that lack hierarchical categorisation of progression or relevance. So, the transient creates noise, which I'm not necessarily saying is a bad thing, we live in a noisy world, but perhaps some care should be given to not let the noise drown out the melodies which are trying to be played. Or maybe those trying to play melodies should play even louder?

I don't think you can force anyone out of the transience even if you tried, because we are all, on some level or another, engaged in the transience. Even those quotes labelled important in the Ra material could be superseded by even more eternally focused philosophy, especially when one considers duality in the Ra material and the philosophy of non-duality (which is pointed to every now and then in the material).  And then even conspiracy theory of world affairs is less transient than what Monica had for lunch on Saturday, so maybe that person getting into a conspiracy theory is making a huge leap forward in caring about the larger stage at play.

And at the end of the day, we're all just having fun in our own ways. Follow your bliss  

[Louisabell]

It's just that with channeled material, it seems that requesting what is considered transient detunes the channel.  I'm not sure what the rules are, but there seems to be rules governing this sort of information exchange.

That makes logical sense from more than one perspective. Anytime you veer from a particular focus, or water down that focus with related foci, it gets less "in tune" with the original focus.

  
I just want to add the thought that it might be more accurately put that the focus of questioning is not the main thing (as Prof. Elkins frequently was baffled in that regard without seeming to harm the connection), but it's the focus of polarity which is the main source of enlivening current which makes deep connection viable in channeling....or even in internet posting.......sometimes?............maybe?
    

What makes you think that? (Not disagreeing, just curious as to your reasoning.)

Is that to suggest that "unpolarized people" would be incapable (or perhaps uninterested) of channeling? How does one measure the polarity of others?

I am also curious, since Ra claimed to be of no polarity, would polarized seeking always lead eventually to a contact of no polarity? Whether positive or negative?

May I suggest that innocence could have been a large part why Don was able to ask transient information without detuning the contact. The issue with innocence is that it is temporary. Once you know better, the Law of Responsibility kicks in, and there is then the expectation to do better . Another reason why it is dangerous to progress too quickly.

75.16 Questioner: Let me see if I understand, then, how the Orion group finds a chink in this distortion. The entity identifying, or having a distortion of any amount toward martyrdom is then open by its free will to the aid of the Orion group to make it a martyr. Am I correct?

Ra: I am Ra. You are correct only in the quite specialized position in which the instrument finds itself, that is, of being involved in and dedicated to work which is magical or extremely polarized in nature. This group entered this work with polarity but virtual innocence as to the magical nature of this polarity it is beginning to discover.

[Sacred Fool]

It's just that with channeled material, it seems that requesting what is considered transient detunes the channel.  I'm not sure what the rules are, but there seems to be rules governing this sort of information exchange.

That makes logical sense from more than one perspective. Anytime you veer from a particular focus, or water down that focus with related foci, it gets less "in tune" with the original focus.

  
I just want to add the thought that it might be more accurately put that the focus of questioning is not the main thing (as Prof. Elkins frequently was baffled in that regard without seeming to harm the connection), but it's the focus of polarity which is the main source of enlivening current which makes deep connection viable in channeling....or even in internet posting.......sometimes?............maybe?
    

What makes you think that? (Not disagreeing, just curious as to your reasoning.)

Patrick observes that requesting transient information detunes a channel (to some degree).  Diana comments that blurring of focus makes one's work less sharp.  I add that the focus of one's will to serve is possibly more central to the process than the focus of the questioning.

My comment is based on many, many sessions over the decades with psychics who seek to make contact beyond the veil, and sometimes this involves a form of channeling.  I would say that the quality of a session depends on 3 particular factors: (1) the quality of the set up--i.e., of the reader's general connection to the internal "equipment" she is using to do the reading (2) the depth of the reader's will to serve and (3) the depth of the questioner's will to serve.  To use again the audio analogy, in the recording studio, the quality of the recording session could be said to depend upon the quality of the equipment, the technician and the noise maker.  In that situation, the equipment is a given, but the determination of the technician and the noise maker to do their best possible work (and this may be simply ingrained, not specifically conjured for the occasion) most strongly affects the quality of the outcome.  The fact that the noise maker may try one tack, then another, then another while exploring which pathway leads to "flow" is not necessarily a distraction if both parties are working in sync to do their best possible work.

Returning to the topic of doing work in Spirit, I have found that the synergy between the technician and the questioner is very important for the same reasons, and that many factors can throw things off a bit, such as confused focus, unclear intentions, stage fright, etc.  In both cases, I would observe, when all parties are feeling a sense of deep and meaningful engagement with the work, the result can be quite beautiful.  This commitment to deep engagement is synonymous with polarity in this context, in my view.
  

[Aion]

It's just that with channeled material, it seems that requesting what is considered transient detunes the channel.  I'm not sure what the rules are, but there seems to be rules governing this sort of information exchange.

That makes logical sense from more than one perspective. Anytime you veer from a particular focus, or water down that focus with related foci, it gets less "in tune" with the original focus.

  
I just want to add the thought that it might be more accurately put that the focus of questioning is not the main thing (as Prof. Elkins frequently was baffled in that regard without seeming to harm the connection), but it's the focus of polarity which is the main source of enlivening current which makes deep connection viable in channeling....or even in internet posting.......sometimes?............maybe?
    

What makes you think that? (Not disagreeing, just curious as to your reasoning.)

Patrick observes that requesting transient information detunes a channel (to some degree).  Diana comments that blurring of focus makes one's work less sharp.  I add that the focus of one's will to serve is possibly more central to the process than the focus of the questioning.

My comment is based on many, many sessions over the decades with psychics who seek to make contact beyond the veil, and sometimes this involves a form of channeling.  I would say that the quality of a session depends on 3 particular factors: (1) the quality of the set up--i.e., of the reader's general connection to the internal "equipment" she is using to do the reading (2) the depth of the reader's will to serve and (3) the depth of the questioner's will to serve.  To use again the audio analogy, in the recording studio, the quality of the recording session could be said to depend upon the quality of the equipment, the technician and the noise maker.  In that situation, the equipment is a given, but the determination of the technician and the noise maker to do their best possible work (and this may be simply ingrained, not specifically conjured for the occasion) most strongly affects the quality of the outcome.  The fact that the noise maker may try one tack, then another, then another while exploring which pathway leads to "flow" is not necessarily a distraction if both parties are working in sync to do their best possible work.

Returning to the topic of doing work in Spirit, I have found that the synergy between the technician and the questioner is very important for the same reasons, and that many factors can throw things off a bit, such as confused focus, unclear intentions, stage fright, etc.  In both cases, I would observe, when all parties are feeling a sense of deep and meaningful engagement with the work, the result can be quite beautiful.  This commitment to deep engagement is synonymous with polarity in this context, in my view.
  

As a musician and producer, I follow your analogy, until you say "deep engagement is synonymous with polarity", is that to suggest an unpolarized entity would not be capable of/willing towards deep engagement? Just seems like a bit of an abstract way to judge 'polarity' to me. Not that these concepts are exactly concrete...

More what I'm trying to reach at is defining polarity within this context, as I feel like everyone has a different conceptualization of what polarity "is". A lot of people seem to use and say the word as though its meaning is a given, but I don't think it's so clear.

[Sacred Fool]

More what I'm trying to reach at is defining polarity within this context, as I feel like everyone has a different conceptualization of what polarity "is". A lot of people seem to use and say the word as though its meaning is a given, but I don't think it's so clear.

Yeah, I realized later that I kind screwed that post up by not better defining polarity, according to my own distorted view.  I see polarity very much connected to the rising individualised energy yearning to combine with what Ra refers to in the "crown is already on the head and the entity is a god" quote.  There's a gradual elevation of self awareness through levels of consciousness, the level of which--for us in 3D--can vary at any given moment. 

So, in the analogy, when I was talking about the commitment to do the best possible work, I would see polarity as (1) the base level (general resting place) to which a person's self awareness has risen (e.g., heart or solar plexus, etc.) and (2) the extent to which said person can allow this to rise higher by becoming susceptible to influences from the realms of spirit during a time of working.  (Naturally, the finer the tuning, the cleaner the work.)

Of course, there's much more detail involved on an individual level.  For instance, one person may have access to many, many spiritual influences while another may be more specialized.

To continue with the audio-musical analogy, perhaps many of us have witnessed fantastically brilliant musicians who seem uncannily open to spiritual sensitivity when they play, but then in many other daily life contexts are nothing remarkable.  I would describe that as their baseline polarity is average, but their polarity (ability to do work in spirit) shoots up exponentially when they open themselves to the whisperings of Spirit as they play.  Some people can do this when they play music, others can do it when they channel, others when they write internet posts (presumably). 

And so we all search for the context which allows us to blossom, although some would say that the baseline polarity might be as or more important.  You choose.
 


Uh, needless to say, I'm not saying all this because I have an authoritative point of view.  I'm just trying to offer what might be useful food for thought.


   

[Asolsutsesvyl]

Ra: I am Ra. To give you this information would be to infringe upon the free will or confusion of some living. We can only ask each group to consider the relative effect of philosophy and your so-called specific information. It is not the specificity of the information which attracts negative influences. It is the importance placed upon it.

It can make sense that giving importance to specific information detunes a message about the infinite. The infinite is more about that any possibility/probability complex has an existence.

From experience in another community, I've come to understand this message more concretely. And basic patterns can be recognized not just "over there", but in other places, including sometimes here.

What you described sounds like a form of elitism.

Very true. That [...] can happen when people begin to think that various little specifics matter a lot spiritually, instead of general principles. The nature of souls ended up judged [in the other community] based on what people think and say about this and that when views change like transient trends both inside and outside the group.

Overconfidence in that group grew inside it, as it set itself apart from the misguided world outside itself, in more and more ways. The consensus became increasingly filled with contradictory elements. They described pattern after pattern of cognitive biases and other traps to avoid which others fall victim to, where they are smart and discerning enough to know better, only to then go right into the same traps some years later.

In ethics, they both:

1. Refined their philosophy very early to theoretically solve the problem: "There is good, there is evil, and there is the specific situation that determines which is which." Morality, ethics, good vs. evil can in principle never be reduced to any set of black and white rules. (I agree, but the problem is that they then did exactly that in practice.)

2. Redefined objectivity as honoring reality including in areas beyond the reach of materialistic science, and then viewed what opposed their group consensus as more subjective and at odds with reality, and fundamentally judged such subjectivity as supporting or being in alignment with STS. The "us vs. them" mentality grew gradually.

To mention a simple type of example of how things ended up working, there is the easy and generally divisive topic of diet and lifestyle. At first they decided that it didn't really matter spiritually what is physically eaten, and so arose the problem with those viewing vegetarianism as spiritually superior: they believe and live an illusion, thus fueling the opposite of honoring reality. Meanwhile, a different type of diet is "more efficient" and thus minimizes gluttony, and that makes it superior in reality instead of in illusion, and then the consensus grew into staunchly supporting that. Then they began to view problems people had as often being a matter of their wrong diet unless they were firmly in line with it. Conflicting spiritual "schools" do the same thing, for example sometimes viewing non-vegetarianism as the cause of all kinds of problems, unless this is disproved by having diet in order first.

The same thing with various other little lifestyle details. There's many ways to spin specifics of "healthy" spiritual living and decide what the new and better "normal" should be. It's apparently also very easy to channel messages supporting your own dogma against that of conflicting teachings. Many channelers do that, while other types of spiritual teachers rely more on e.g. scriptures or other sources of "inspiration".

A point as regards "detuning" is that the more a spiritual teaching becomes concerned with such details and begins to view all kinds of problems of life centrally in relation to that, the more materialistic the focus tends to become. Regardless of what the "spiritual" dogma concerning physical life is, all kinds of complex, existential, and other deep questions will in practice become reduced to the terms of that dogma.

(In my personal opinion, it's all bogus, a predictable "game" which many like to play but which leads nowhere, regardless of which variation is being played.)

That's all about one sub-type of transient focus, the moralizing kind. There can be other problematic patterns of transient focus, but it's particularly easy to flesh out Ra's description of the results of (possibly invisible) negative attention when it comes to moralizing about transient things. After all, moralizing is fundamental in creating divisions between people, so entries into abusing that will be especially sought after by negative influences. (Perhaps for "teachers" who start out positive, the road to hell is paved with moralization.)

[Sacred Fool]

A point as regards "detuning" is that the more a spiritual teaching becomes concerned with such details and begins to view all kinds of problems of life centrally in relation to that, the more materialistic the focus tends to become. Regardless of what the "spiritual" dogma concerning physical life is, all kinds of complex, existential, and other deep questions will in practice become reduced to the terms of that dogma.

 
Yes, I suppose it's like a knife or many other basic tools: used one way they can be very helpful, used another way they can be very destructive.  On the one side, participating in life where each element is viewed sacramentally is most beautiful, but using spiritual ideas to manipulate social engagement is another matter.  How does one negotiate the distinction?

I think that's a very good discussion to entertain.
 

[Sacred Fool]

 
This is rather unusual interchange from 22 NOV 1992 which speaks to music and to ....well, you'll see.

Carla: I have one about the trumpet. I would like to know about the functioning, or how to get it to really work.

I am Q’uo, and we may speak in general upon this subject, my sister. We thank you for this opportunity. When one has opened the channel to useful work with entities of the inner planes which move into the energy web of your planet and yourself, one has basically established a way of being of service as a tuned instrument. When an instrument is played it is not the instrument alone which must be excellent. The excellence of the instrument being assured, then there is the allowing of the best possible, shall we say, contracted or focused line or channel between the two and through the instrument so that the most compelling music may be played.

In working with the energies which make the trumpet move, the voices speak, the (sounds like “aports”) appear, and the other materialization phenomena which you are familiar with, the instrument which you are must be activated in a certain way. This is like unto the polishing of the inner surface of a reed, for instance, so that the energy moving through this reed may come forth or materialize in the manifested world with unabated vigor or energy. Any, shall we say, rough spots, any blockings, any ways in which the inner surface is not smooth will baffle and frustrate the energy or breath moving through it and add limit [to] the materialization phenomenon.

There is a kind of energy which allows the materialization phenomena to occur, and this lively energy is one with each is familiar. However, it is not this energy which moves the trumpet. This lively energy is expended in poising the self without let or hindrance, without any reserve in such a way that the spirit moving through you, as the instrument, may use that generated potential for materialization in a crystallized and finely focused way. It is as though your personal, deeply felt commitment and substantive energy given to this liveliness of will may be seen as a broad spectrum potential which the breath of spirit moving through your vortex of self may pick up more and more powerfully the less tightly you personally are holding onto this energy.

We might refer the mind to the Zen parable this instrument has within its experience of the archer who spends his entire concentration upon the focusing perfectly the visualization of the target, but does not at any point while drawing the bow and releasing it open the eyes to look at the physical target. The careful medium’s focus of attention is upon this static, permanent ideal of bow, of the powerful drawing of the bow, and of the releasing of the arrow, not when the personal will suggests but when the breath of spirit creates that choice.

Thusly, we suggest the encouragement of generation of this deep desire and this lively will, and then the utter and focused surrender of this and all gifts and talents to the one infinite Creator, that the breath of spirit may move through you in such a crystallized way that the personal energies become universal. In a way, it is the same objectification of deep emotions of which we spoke in talking of relationships, honoring the ability of the self to become capable of carrying those communications or attitudes which may benefit all people, and then surrendering this to the highest and best spiritual contact which is within your energies and which comes to you from that portion of the Creator, shall we say, which embodies for you your highest service.

   
  

[flofrog]

“ seeking the Eternal “ is there an idea of melting into that mystery then ? Definitely aiming to lose a 3D identity ?

I love that Minyatur :

“ The transient, that which begins and ends, reflects finitely the mystery

.

[Sacred Fool]

  
From 67.11.

...You do not have merely two opposite requests for service. You will find an infinite array of contradictory requests for information or lack of information from this source if you listen carefully to those whose voices you may hear. This is all one voice to which you resonate upon a certain frequency. This frequency determines your choice of service to the One Creator. As it happens this group’s vibratory patterns and those of Ra are compatible and enable us to speak through this instrument with your support. This is a function of free will.


A portion, seemingly, of the Creator rejoices at your choice to question us regarding the evolution of spirit. A seemingly separate portion would wish for multitudinous answers to a great range of queries of a specific nature. ...

 
 
For my little old self, this passage fairly well encapsulates my view of transient vs, non-transient material.  Personally, I use them both, but I feel I have a markedly stronger bias towards asking questions regarding evolution of the spirit as compared with being especially concerned with queries of a specific nature.  In turn, this very much does colour the nature of my service to the one Creatrix. 

Years ago, I had occasion to ask a fellow if he or his group could recommend a skilled psychic reader.  He told me that some people had good experiences with so-and-so, and he gave me her contact info.  Years later I asked him if he had had any luck with her, and he reported that his experiences were mixed.  He had asked questions about a house he and the wife were looking at, as well as some other things.  Some answers were useful and others were not.  In general, I don't think he was happy with what he got for the money spent.

Myself, I have gotten way more than my money's worth from this person over the years, but I realized at that moment, I hardly ever asked her questions of a transient nature.  Mainly (not solely, by any means) I ask questions pertaining to spiritual growth and evolution.  Often I will state, "My impression of the situation is blah-blah, what do your angels have to say about it?  And then i press further.  And then I press further. 

I would add here, though, that not everyone can make use of the catalyst you would receive from such questions.  For it to have practical use, you have to be have some facility for actively dancing with your spirit and translating spiritual concepts into the way you engage in your immediate life experience.

 
What frequencies people tune in to and what their consequence choice of service is, of course, wholly their own business.  The point I was making, seemingly in an earlier epoch, was that the aggregate of all these vibrations within these forums adds up to a larger vibration and a larger specific bent towards service.  It's surely not for one person with totalitarian tendencies (so they say) to dictate what these frequency ranges should be limited to, but he would aver that it's a darned interesting question to ponder......if these sorts of concerns happen to find themselves attracted to you, shall we say.  Or, to put it another way, if it's not a pointlessly abstract concern, and you care.
  
  

[unity100]

Ultimately, nothing can be transient in infinity.

Everything is an integral part of infinity, which, without the most minute part, is not infinite.

Therefore nothing can be called transient as such in the ultimate sense.

Every minor event, thought, situation, practice, whatever - affect everything in the universe even if in trace amounts, and those effects cascade and grow, add up and culminate to major waves from an infinite perspective.

Therefore such definitions must be taken in their given context:

At the time of channeling of Ra Material, harvest of this planet, a particular event, was pending, and that was the objective of confederation, council of nine, Ra, LL group, and practically every single entity within this planetary sphere to make it a reasonable harvest.

So any information that did not pertain to that objective at that given time, was transient.

In a greater sense, any information or teaching that the entity could not make a part of its own greater being and carry across incarnations or even different planets, is transient as it pertains to the entity's individual evolution.

[Sacred Fool]

Ultimately, nothing can be transient in infinity.

Oddly enough, some would say that everything is transient in the context of infinity.  Maybe it depends upon the context, whether one is looking through a telescope or a microscope?

In any event, one can choose to give the avenue of relativism further pediatric polish or tread the little worn path towards the undistorted self...or maybe alternate them.  If choosing the path towards the undistorted self, then choices are made based upon vibrational preference rather than preference for a particular illusory context, it seems to me.