3D to 4D: Sudden or Gradual? A great read...(David Wilcock interview)

[Bring4th_Austin]

Omg. You just washed over all I said. A clock is an analogy. They are not saying that intelligent energy opens to intelligent infinity in 60 seconds. They are saying just like you can expect a clock to read 3:00 two hours after 1:00, so you can expect that a phase of energy inflow/outflow to arrive at a certain time.

I think 3DM is offering a great insight here which, as he said, was largely ignored. This line of thinking offers me a bit of clarity 3DM, thank you.

[zenmaster]

Inside me, I was not putting anyone down.

I was mainly referring to zenmaster.

Typical projection 'big boy'.? BTW, 'Your posts (seem to me) are devoid of essential energy'... Why don't you try being 'green ray' for a change? We could all benefit then.

[Raman]

Inside me, I was not putting anyone down.

I was mainly referring to zenmaster.

Typical projection 'big boy'.? By the way, 'Your posts (seem to me) are devoid of essential energy'... Why don't you try being 'green ray' for a change? We could all benefit then.

Very well then. I sincerely send you love. I apologize if I have offended you.

---

it was a meticulous and dangerous form of out of body trance. moreover, and more importantly, information and systems given in the whole of material constitute a whole which you can start from any end, and eventually arrive at another end without breaking.

the real feature that validates this whole of information is that, it can be verified in multiple aspects. and due to interconnectedness, this validates a lot of other info in the chain directly.

The source tells us it was meticulous, the source tells us it was dangerous. The information and systems are consistent, yes, but self-contained within the source.

I am skeptical of any source of information which can only be validated or verified by looking within the source itself, no matter how complex or intricately woven the material is. I understand some of the information can be validated from outside sources, but to my knowledge the information was available before the Ra contact itself, offering me no real validation. Also, just because some of the information can be validated doesn't award the other information validation.


To get personal, despite my skepticism, I put faith into some channeled material, including Ra, Q'uo, and others. But at the end of the day, unverifiable channeled information is unverifiable channeled information, Ra and Q'uo both included.

Can anything really be proved? We can only talk about possibilities and probabilities.

Kinda like there are only white swans until someone discovers a black swan somewhere many years later...Or would the sun appear tomorrow?...Or ciprofloxacin is effective against pseudomonas aeruginosa...well maybe not tomorrow...things like that. Time seems to be a big component about "prove/disprove"...anything in 3d.

I think Ra material has the highest probability to be a 6d communication to 3d entities/situations.

Part of the mystery is why this material is believed to be accurate by some.

[zenmaster]

Inside me, I was not putting anyone down.

I was mainly referring to zenmaster.

Typical projection 'big boy'.? By the way, 'Your posts (seem to me) are devoid of essential energy'... Why don't you try being 'green ray' for a change? We could all benefit then.

Very well then. I sincerely send you love. I apologize if I have offended you.

---

No offense, it's a joke.

[βαθμιαίος]

Omg. You just washed over all I said. A clock is an analogy. They are not saying that intelligent energy opens to intelligent infinity in 60 seconds. They are saying just like you can expect a clock to read 3:00 two hours after 1:00, so you can expect that a phase of energy inflow/outflow to arrive at a certain time.

A wave on a 3D clock is measured by 60 seconds. A wave of intelligent energy is not defined and is probably NOT on a sixty second flow. Hypothetically, the wave could be 1,000 years.

Not trying to wash over what you said, just to understand and reply to it.

Not sure where you're getting 60 seconds from. I feel like you keep trying to put what I'm saying into a box and not really deal with it. Apparently, you have the same feeling about me, but that's not my intention.

The question is what happens when the hour strikes and intelligent energy opens to intelligent infinity. I certainly don't know and I don't think anyone does. I find Ra's statements to be ambivalent enough that I don't rule out instantaneous change. If you're convinced the change will be gradual, I don't have a problem with that. I do object to being told that I'm trying to force the issue to fit my preconceived notions.

Honestly, though, the whole discussion is a little pointless, since we will know soon enough one way or the other. (Even if "soon" turns out to be 700 years.)

[Raman]

Interesting enough, the ones who do not "agree" on a somewhat "instantaneous change" are revealing themselves as not finding the Ra material very reliable (seems to me).

[Bring4th_Austin]

Can anything really be proved? We can only talk about possibilities and probabilities.

There's a line between validation and proof in my personal definition. Like I said, the source of information is largely only validated by itself. The philosophical and spiritual information is easy to accept because these things are largely subjective and effect personal perception, and these things are subject to our own personal truths.

Specific information, such as the nature of ETs, the confederation, densities, pyramids, people...all of that, is not verifiable outside of a closed-system source. Information like whether or not the 3D plane actually exists as Ra describes, and will go into potentiation. Information like the approach of some ominous harvest.

Ra can say, "The Great Pyramid exists," and that is validated because we can go see the Great Pyramid. Ra can say, "We created the Great Pyramid with thought," and we trust on faith alone.

Carla can say, "I spoke in a manner which seems that an ET group formulated the words," and it is easily validated. Carla can say, "An ET group spoke through me," and we trust on faith alone.

Trusting these things on faith alone is no different than trusting Q'uo or any other channeled material. You can have your own system for discernment, such as unity100 has for believing in the Ra material, but this is subjective and personal.

I think Ra material has the highest probability to be a 6d communication to 3d entities/situations.

My previously stated personal opinion mirrors your own.

Part of the mystery is why this material is believed to be accurate by some.

We all have our own personal systems for discernment on what we have faith in, but alas, it is still faith.

---

Interesting enough, the ones who do not "agree" on a somewhat "instantaneous change" are revealing themselves as not finding the Ra material very reliable (seems to me).

You are largely missing the point of this line of discussion. Please read:

To get personal, despite my skepticism, I put faith into some channeled material, including Ra, Q'uo, and others.

I balance faith with skepticism.





This discussion is very off-topic and was in response to unity100 labeling Q'uo information as unreliable.

[Raman]

We all have our own personal systems for discernment on what we have faith in, but alas, it is still faith.

Faith is somehow blue ray related...trying to prove/disprove everything because this has been the cultural baggage is more yellow ray focused.

Ra can say, "The Great Pyramid exists," and that is validated because we can go see the Great Pyramid. Ra can say, "We created the Great Pyramid with thought," and we trust on faith alone.

That is also not provable...I can go to Egypt to "prove" that and for all I know it could has been destroyed by the air strike of an american war plane. Again probabilities tied up with the concept of time.

[zenmaster]

I balance faith with skepticism.

Some strive for balance, others strive for the darkness of 'mystery'.

[Raman]

You cannot say that because you can prove that (or not) today it cannot be proven/disproven tomorrow (or in a billion years)

---

I balance faith with skepticism.

Some strive for balance, others strive for the darkness of 'mystery'.

Mystery is part of striving for balance.

[Bring4th_Austin]

My last statement of participation in this off-topic discussion within this thread (I will gladly continue to discuss in a new thread) is to reiterate my statement that I consider validation different from proof. I will not argue with the fact that we cannot prove anything. Whether the statement itself is true or false is unprovable, and off to infinity we goooooooo.

[Raman]

Validation and proof are directly related. I guess you mean "validation" as "probabilities/possibilities". Then if so, I'm agreeing with you.

[zenmaster]

You cannot say that because you can prove that (or not) today it cannot be proven/disproven tomorrow (or in a billion years)

---

I balance faith with skepticism.

Some strive for balance, others strive for the darkness of 'mystery'.

Mystery is part of striving for balance.

Mystery is what you start with : "There is nothing else which is of aid in demonstrating the original thought except your very being, and the distortions that come from the unexplained, inarticulate, or mystery-clad being are many. Thus, to attempt to discern and weave your way through as many group mind/body/spirit distortions as possible among your peoples in the course of your teaching is a very good effort to make." Then again, to not attempt to discern is an option too, and indeed part of balance. Everyone needs to take a step back and enjoy wonderment now and then.

[Raman]

Previous octave a mystery, next octave a mystery...The only true balance it seems is to strive towards the Source and not to impede this journey.

[unity100]

it was a meticulous and dangerous form of out of body trance. moreover, and more importantly, information and systems given in the whole of material constitute a whole which you can start from any end, and eventually arrive at another end without breaking.

the real feature that validates this whole of information is that, it can be verified in multiple aspects. and due to interconnectedness, this validates a lot of other info in the chain directly.

The source tells us it was meticulous, the source tells us it was dangerous. The information and systems are consistent, yes, but self-contained within the source.

I am skeptical of any source of information which can only be validated or verified by looking within the source itself, no matter how complex or intricately woven the material is.

if you return back and reexamine, you will find that i specifically mentioned that that system of information gets verified in multiple parts with the reality we inhabit, precisely for that reason.

Omg. You just washed over all I said. A clock is an analogy. They are not saying that intelligent energy opens to intelligent infinity in 60 seconds. They are saying just like you can expect a clock to read 3:00 two hours after 1:00, so you can expect that a phase of energy inflow/outflow to arrive at a certain time.

I think 3DM is offering a great insight here which, as he said, was largely ignored. This line of thinking offers me a bit of clarity 3DM, thank you.

ra says intelligent infinity offers a type of clock. not 'something like a clock' or 'an analogy of a clock'.

it was said that, the gateway to intelligent infinity opens regardless of the striking of the hour.

it doesnt have to be 60 seconds, but it can be 60 seconds. it doesnt have to be a day, it can be a few days.

however it cant be decades. a decades long happening, is a 'process', and it cannot be said to 'happen' at a certain year (circa 2011), like Ra said, in our context, in response to a question in OUR time of reference.

moreover, if such an event was years long, it would be possible to do an immense array of things in the process, since gateway to intelligent infinity will be open for that duration.

[zenmaster]

61.9 Questioner: This brings out the point of the purpose of the physical incarnation, I believe. And that is to reach a conviction through your own thought processes as to a solution to problems and understandings in a totally free situation with no proof at all or anything that you would consider proof, proof being a very poor word in itself. Can you expand on my concept?

Ra: I am Ra. Your opinion is an eloquent one although somewhat confused in its connections between the freedom expressed by subjective knowing and the freedom expressed by subjective acceptance. There is a significant distinction between the two.

This is not a dimension of knowing, even subjectively, due to the lack of overview of cosmic and other in-pourings which affect each and every situation which produces catalyst. The subjective acceptance of that which is at the moment and the finding of love within that moment is the greater freedom.

That known as the subjective knowing without proof is, in some degree, a poor friend for there will be anomalies no matter how much information is garnered due to the distortions which form third-density.

Here's the thing. Each one of us, depending on the nature of our bias, arrives at this acceptance in a unique manner. The acceptance is the 'ownership' of the logos. If it's 'mystery' shrouding that causes acceptance, than so be it.

[Bring4th_Austin]

if you return back and reexamine, you will find that i specifically mentioned that that system of information gets verified in multiple parts with the reality we inhabit, precisely for that reason.

Could you give examples of things in the Ra material that wasn't already apparent for us to know before the Ra contact within the reality we inhabit?

Asked purely in the spirit of curiosity...this discussion is exhausting me.

[3DMonkey]

ra says intelligent infinity offers a type of clock. not 'something like a clock' or 'an analogy of a clock'.

it was said that, the gateway to intelligent infinity opens regardless of the striking of the hour.

it doesnt have to be 60 seconds, but it can be 60 seconds. it doesnt have to be a day, it can be a few days.

however it cant be decades. a decades long happening, is a 'process', and it cannot be said to 'happen' at a certain year (circa 2011), like Ra said, in our context, in response to a question in OUR time of reference.

moreover, if such an event was years long, it would be possible to do an immense array of things in the process, since gateway to intelligent infinity will be open for that duration.

You are mixing different things here that have no direct linkage.

First, the quote is this:
9.3 Questioner: The way that I understand the process of evolution is that our planetary population has a certain amount of time to progress. This is generally divided into three 25,000-year cycles. At the end of 75,000 years the planet progresses itself. What caused this situation to come about with the preciseness of the years in each cycle?
Ra: I am Ra. Visualize, if you will, the particular energy which, outward flowing and inward coagulating, formed the tiny realm of the creation governed by your Council of Saturn. Continue seeing the rhythm of this process. The living flow creates a rhythm which is as inevitable as one of your timepieces. Each of your planetary entities began the first cycle when the energy nexus was able in that environment to support such mind/body experiences. Thus, each of your planetary entities is on a different cyclical schedule as you might call it. The timing of these cycles is a measurement equal to a portion of intelligent energy.

This intelligent energy offers a type of clock. The cycles move as precisely as a clock strikes your hour. Thus, the gateway from intelligent energy to intelligent infinity opens regardless of circumstance on the striking of the hour.

13.23 Questioner: How does a third-density planet become a fourth density planet?
Ra: I am Ra. This will be the last full question.

The fourth density is, as we have said, as regularized in its approach as the striking of a clock upon the hour. The space/time of your solar system has enabled this planetary sphere to spiral into space/time of a different vibrational configuration. This causes the planetary sphere to be able to be molded by these new distortions.
More precisely, the analogy is presented in the form of simile, a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid.

Second, it is "regardless of circumstance", and "on the striking of the hour" is still within the analogous description.

Third, the quote is this:
17.29 Questioner: Am I to understand that the harvest is to occur in the year 2011, or will it be spread out?
Ra: I am Ra. This is an approximation. We have stated we have difficulty with your time/space. This is an appropriate probable/possible time/space nexus for harvest. Those who are not in incarnation at this time will be included in the harvest.
"To occur" literally means that the set of conditions known as harvest will be present in 2011. "Appropriate nexus" literally means the connection between 2011 and harvest can be made. Nothing of these literally means that the entire act of harvest will begin and finish within a year, a probable year of 2011.
The idea that "happen" can not be "process" is unfounded. A hypothetical time frame of a 199 year harvest-process literally has harvest "happen" every day of the "process."

---

61.9 Questioner: This brings out the point of the purpose of the physical incarnation, I believe. And that is to reach a conviction through your own thought processes as to a solution to problems and understandings in a totally free situation with no proof at all or anything that you would consider proof, proof being a very poor word in itself. Can you expand on my concept?

Ra: I am Ra. Your opinion is an eloquent one although somewhat confused in its connections between the freedom expressed by subjective knowing and the freedom expressed by subjective acceptance. There is a significant distinction between the two.

This is not a dimension of knowing, even subjectively, due to the lack of overview of cosmic and other in-pourings which affect each and every situation which produces catalyst. The subjective acceptance of that which is at the moment and the finding of love within that moment is the greater freedom.

That known as the subjective knowing without proof is, in some degree, a poor friend for there will be anomalies no matter how much information is garnered due to the distortions which form third-density.

Here's the thing. Each one of us, depending on the nature of our bias, arrives at this acceptance in a unique manner. The acceptance is the 'ownership' of the logos. If it's 'mystery' shrouding that causes acceptance, than so be it.

Choice quote. It covers multiple discussions going on in this one thread. (I love that, by the way.)

The funny thing about it is that you must believe the source of the quote, then the quote itself, then reapply the quote back unto itself, and then repeat. 'sounds right' 'is it true' 'let me apply what it says' 'sounds made up' 'is it true' 'let me apply what it say' 'sounds okay' 'is it real' 'let me try it out' , etc.

[zenmaster]

The funny thing about it is that you must believe the source of the quote, then the quote itself, then reapply the quote back unto itself, and then repeat. 'sounds right' 'is it true' 'let me apply what it says' 'sounds made up' 'is it true' 'let me apply what it say' 'sounds okay' 'is it real' 'let me try it out' , etc.

Seeing the principles underneath thought, which has always been, there is freedom and non-attachment.

The 'skeptic' and 'believer' are the same. The same in 'purity', the same in 'polarity'. People will ever continue to project the opposite of their (purely ego-centric) personality bias, unless and until they accept what they themselves are doing to 'balance'. The are essentially looking for others for guidance, while pretending to see the way.

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/...lieve.html Both would claim 'open-mindedness'. You'd have to be close-minded not to see that.

Are the open minded skeptic and open minded believer ultimately the same thing? I think so, if the belief and the skepticism originate from an honest approach. However, I feel there are two specific attributes that keep either from being as effective in their claims as they could be. That is, naivate and lack of discernment.

These are two different things: naivate, is due to a worldview (weltanschauung) which has not incorporated certain experiences. While discernment, is an active skill that does draw upon such experience, but also informs one when the limits of knowledge are reached.

If there is lack of discernment (which seems to be tied to honesty), bias for what one wants to see tends to substitute for knowledge. However, with more discernment, the boundaries of one's knowledge are more visible and what is known is not as likely to be overextended or misapplied.

The "believer" and "skeptic" may actually be the same thing, ultimately, if discernment is available. However, in their dishonest forms, we have the phenomena of the "fanatic" and the "debunker". These are heavily biased devotees who tend to raise mere bias and speculation, in the form of insubstantial or incongruous claims, to the status of fact. A characteristic difference in approaches is that the fanatic tends to be rather uncritical and seemingly open-minded , but only in regards to the perceived promotion of a particular cause or agenda to which they have identified ("everything is possible, if I like the idea"). While the debunker, similarly, applies his/her skepticism only to promote a particular cause of agenda ("everything is explainable and within my worldview"). Both approaches are effectively close minded.

I've also noticed that, if it serves to synthesize a pleasing story, many fanatics tend to correlate and connect disparate things and ideas. Whereas, many debunkers tend to mis-attribute causality to perception. This suggests unbridled use of the intuition and lack of reasoning in the former and over thinking or lack of intuition and false attributions or reductionism in the latter.

[unity100]

if you return back and reexamine, you will find that i specifically mentioned that that system of information gets verified in multiple parts with the reality we inhabit, precisely for that reason.

Could you give examples of things in the Ra material that wasn't already apparent for us to know before the Ra contact within the reality we inhabit?

Asked purely in the spirit of curiosity...this discussion is exhausting me.

you can pick anything you can verify in your personal life. this may be the chakra system, this may be philosophy, this may be historical concepts about the lives of people examined.

a totally coherent, complete furball of information system touching the current reality we inhabit from any tangent will validate itself.

[Raman]

61.9 Questioner: This brings out the point of the purpose of the physical incarnation, I believe. And that is to reach a conviction through your own thought processes as to a solution to problems and understandings in a totally free situation with no proof at all or anything that you would consider proof, proof being a very poor word in itself. Can you expand on my concept?

Ra: I am Ra. Your opinion is an eloquent one although somewhat confused in its connections between the freedom expressed by subjective knowing and the freedom expressed by subjective acceptance. There is a significant distinction between the two.

This is not a dimension of knowing, even subjectively, due to the lack of overview of cosmic and other in-pourings which affect each and every situation which produces catalyst. The subjective acceptance of that which is at the moment and the finding of love within that moment is the greater freedom.

That known as the subjective knowing without proof is, in some degree, a poor friend for there will be anomalies no matter how much information is garnered due to the distortions which form third-density.

Here's the thing. Each one of us, depending on the nature of our bias, arrives at this acceptance in a unique manner. The acceptance is the 'ownership' of the logos. If it's 'mystery' shrouding that causes acceptance, than so be it.

That quote is right on the mark.

Seeking for proof is a necessity in 3d, (space-time/time-space) but is it ever definitive? No, since 3d is not a density of understanding since it is an illusion...directly related to the sub-Logos. Even Ra talks about possibilities/probabilities always tied up with time.

It seems that starting in 4d the true nature of the sub-Logos is unveiled.

[zenmaster]

The phenomenal realm 'functions derived from principles of being' or 'the finger pointing at the moon' (3D) and catalyst vs the underlying noumenal realm or 'principles of being' Kant's 'Ding an sich' (4D), with no catalyst.
The progression of individuation within 3D is the same way. Moving from the preliminary learning of the basics of the self, including how one thinks (the biases), to simply 'being', after a certain amount of self acceptance.
With the acceptance, much of the catalytic opportunities of 3D are not as useful to evolution on the whole - and may just offer 'fine tuning'. And without a certain degree of acceptance, the principles of 4D are not useful to evolution. The higher self and, after a certain amount of 3D experience, even the 3D time/space self simply sees what next incarnation would be most useful for evolution. We are 'harvested' where we would have the most potential to evolve, anything less would not be 'serving the creator'.

[Raman]

That seems reasonable. I am not disputing any of that. But this does not relate to the point I was making. At all. You are starting from Kant. I am "starting" from the Ra material info given to us.

[Monica]

There are many threads in Science & Technology that attempt to establish verification of the info given us by Ra.

[zenmaster]

There are many threads in Science & Technology that attempt to establish verification of the info given us by Ra.

Science and telchnology deals with inventions of little value to evolution, other that providing tools and gadgets, while philosophy attempts to address ideology, values and underlying principles of thought.
It's not just Kant, there's Plato, Teilhard de Chardin, et al.

As they state, Ra is just offering their own spin, or 'somewhat different slant upon the information which is always and ever the same.'

To learn, one must bridge what one currently has to work with to that which is offered. There is so much more to work with, in the form of philosophical, psychological, and religious work, than many people realize.

[Raman]

Yeah they offer their own "spin" and that is what makes it interesting. Probably the first "blue ray" spin in a long time (they are "residing" in 5d at this time)...Many of those philosophers had great insights and "timeless" ideas..however mostly "yellow ray" focused. Even though Kant's "a priori" deals could be related to sub-Logos programming and Derrida's is right on the mark discovering the pairs/dichotomies of not only language but reality (and his concept of "hospitality" is a superb 4d example) that blew away the "Vienna Circle" and linguistics approach to philosophy. At the end, the sense of "proof" and knowing conflicts with time (as in space-time).

So indeed is a different slant. Very different. Indeed as metaphysics as important as physics, for example.

[Bring4th_Austin]

you can pick anything you can verify in your personal life. this may be the chakra system, this may be philosophy, this may be historical concepts about the lives of people examined.

a totally coherent, complete furball of information system touching the current reality we inhabit from any tangent will validate itself.

Isn't this also true of Q'uo? And a lot of other consciously channeled material? This in regards to the chakra system, philosophy, and so-forth. You say that these rather subjective things "validate the whole of information." Why do they validate the transient information, and only the transient information of the Ra material and not other material?

What I am contending is the information which is apparently transient of spirituality; the ETs, the pyramids, the history, science, harvest, pole shift, etc. Why do we trust that Ra is correct about the Atlanteans only because their philosophical teachings seem to ring true to us? (just an example)

I'll try to bring it back around...you contended that Q'uo was distorted and thus you couldn't believe for sure their statement that the pole shift was averted. With regards to everything I just said, why would Ra's prediction of a pole shift hold any more sway than Q'uo's assertion that pole shift was averted?

There are many threads in Science & Technology that attempt to establish verification of the info given us by Ra.

I searched there before asking the question, and found a couple of threads. There was one about String Theory, which was theorized before the Ra contact. There was one about possible life on Venus billions of years ago, which is circumstantial. And there was one linking to the work of David Wilcock talking about various things related to the Ra contact, but nothing that directly validates Ra's words.

Am I missing something? Are there any threads there which offer evidence which directly validates Ra's words?

Science and telchnology deals with inventions of little value to evolution, other that providing tools and gadgets, while philosophy attempts to address ideology, values and underlying principles of thought.
It's not just Kant, there's Plato, Teilhard de Chardin, et al.

As they state, Ra is just offering their own spin, or 'somewhat different slant upon the information which is always and ever the same.'

To learn, one must bridge what one currently has to work with to that which is offered. There is so much more to work with, in the form of philosophical, psychological, and religious work, than many people realize.

Right, when I first started this side-discussion I tried to somewhat establish this. I find this particular discussion about the mechanics of harvest rather transient to philosophy/spirituality:

Honestly, I am equally as skeptical of ANY information transmitted in the Ra contact that is not of spiritual nature, including things about people (Jesus, MLK, etc.), history (Atlantis, etc.), the pyramids, and all. Their descriptions of oneness, unity, Service to Others vs. Service to self, polarity, and the nature of consciousness is pretty indisputable, but I don't buy every bit of the information. I discuss it with loyalty to the material on this forum because that is one of the main purposes of this forum, but candidly, I trust Q'uo as much as Ra, and neither do I trust completely. When we start dismissing consciously channeled material simply due to the method of delivery, then I will just as ready dismiss all material in the Ra contact aside from philosophical and spiritual concepts (for example, information on harvest, ETs, science-minded metaphysics, densities, etc. I would dismiss)

I am drawn to the Ra material mainly because of the spiritual teachings. I hold true to the transient information because this is an L/L Research established forum. But Q'uo is also L/L Research material, with just as much if not MORE philosophical and spiritual information which rings true throughout our daily lives.

[Monica]

Am I missing something? Are there any threads there which offer evidence which directly validates Ra's words?

Try this one:

Science & Technology > (Ra's words confirmed) Law of One claims proven or evidenced by Science

It has several items of interest.

And there are a few others but I'm not sure how substantial they are. Try doing a search for the word proof in the S&T forum.

[kycahi]

The good thing about Ra and Q'uo stuff "ringing true" is that I won't bet the farm on anything they said/say. I can live my life according to my interpretations of them and feel very good about serving others etc.

That historical stuff is fun to read and helps me understand the philosophical underpinnings, but that's all.

[Monica]

I am drawn to the Ra material mainly because of the spiritual teachings. I hold true to the transient information because this is an L/L Research established forum. But Q'uo is also L/L Research material, with just as much if not MORE philosophical and spiritual information which rings true throughout our daily lives.

I get great value out of the Q'uo channelings. I find it more practical in dealing with everyday life, and more personal.

However, I don't consider it as undistorted as the Ra sessions. I appreciate the Q'uo channelings, but I use more discernment when reading them. I am past the discernment phase with the Ra works and trust it completely.