Fukusjima

[Oceania]

Richard, we're not talking about Fox. you said you don't believe in conspiracy theories, that's what we're discussing imo. not Fox. that may have started it but all we tried was to explain why conspiracy theories can be true.

[3DMonkey]

It was the claim of Obama covering up Nebraska problems that started the news source debate. I think?

My instinct was that it was exaggerated but I didn't want to research other sources. I'm thankful somebody did.

[Oceania]

i don't even remember. wait, the nuclear thing? is that gonna be a problem for the american people?

[Monica]

since it is 51% of entire energy of the entity, red, orange, yellow at least should be open. it leaves 3 other chakras - green, blue, indigo.

doing red, orange, yellow and moving into green with 1% seems to be the thing, as far as i understood.

Am I understanding you correctly that green needs to be only 1% open? I am very surprised by this! That is totally not how I understand it! My understanding is that green must be 51% open for STO harvest.

With only 1% open, STO/STS would lose their meaning.

I don't have time right now to research quotes. Maybe we can start a new thread on this topic later (unless there is already one).

It's a continuum. Just as we must individuate in 2D, in order to be harvestable to 3D, and then unify in 4D, so too must we first learn to love family, and then move beyond that, to love all.

That's not elitism. It's just the path of evolution. Sure, it would be nice to instantly love everyone, but that's not how it works. We have to start loving, and it probably doesn't matter whom we love, as long as we love.

that's something that needs to happen in late 2d. not late 3d.

I didn't say anything about late 3D. I said individuation must occur in (late) 2D, in order to be harvested from 2D into 3D.

even in this orange blocked world there are tribes and societies which treat anyone's child as anyone's child, and mothers who treat anyone's child as their child.

if you look at the general spiritual literature and channelings for info regarding how some entities lived in their past in positive settings (not in this planet), or currently living, you will see the same pattern.

Good point. There are indeed cultures in which 'the whole village raises the child.' But that doesn't necessarily indicate that they love the children all equally. It may just be that they consider it their duty to look after one another's children.

As for other planets, well yes, we know that they had a smoother evolution. This planet is very backwards.

it is not irrelevant for an entity that needs to undergo harvest. i dont even know how to respond to 'and there's a reason for that' -> for everything there is a reason but that doesnt make it compatible with any particular path an entity may be wanting to follow.

What I mean is, there is a reason that we have family structures on this planet. It was designed to facilitate caring for others, with the idea being that, as one learns to love those close to him/her, the s/he can start expanding that love to others outside the family circle.

With this planet so behind, it was probably decided that expecting the 3D entities to love others equally was too advanced, so starting with loving families was a way to progress towards the eventual goal of loving all.

its her responsibility to find a way to do both.

As I already stated, I absolutely agree that it's her responsibility to do both. As stated, I think she should work towards a livelihood that is in alignment with her values. However, I disagree that she should quit her job, leaving her children in need, before she has found a suitable replacement. That would be irresponsible.

let me ask you why it should ?

Because this entire game we play, is to facilitate our spiritual evolution. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that our awareness and intentions would be factors in how the cosmic laws are applied to us.

law of responsibility is something that stems from simple action-reaction. any action is a reaction.

I disagree. I think it is more than mere mechanics. Consciousness plays a part in this.

there is no differentiation in the eyes of existential mechanics like 'he is just...'. your cat still killed another 2d entity, and that set out dynamics in that direction. those dynamics fill return to your cat eventually.

Are you saying that cats incur karma when they kill birds?

one would wonder at this point why there is so much brutal killing of 2d entities in 2d on this planet.

Oh yes. As you well know, I am in agreement with you on that one! And doing what I can to change it. I fully intend to raise some hell about that, when I get the chance. I find the entire design of this planet barbaric! An experiment taken too far!

But again getting back to my point, I don't think a cat incurs as much karma when he kills a bird, as a human does when he kills a bird. There is an increase in responsibility, corresponding to the increase in awareness. I'm quite certain I read that in the Law of One, somewhere.

that mother is free to choose how to handle her responsibility. however, even if intentions and situations may change the response of higher self, complex totality, or social memory complex or its totality towards her act, law of responsibility will still act indiscriminately.

Yes, but do you see that the law of responsibility will also act on her irresponsible behavior in neglecting her children?

That is just trading one irresponsible act for another (and a much greater irresponsible act, in my opinion). I guess what I'm hung up on is your view that she should immediately quit her job. Or did I misunderstand you?

there were multinational corporations, despite you could not legally say they were multinational in legal sense like today - there wasnt an east india company india as in a business entity in india, but east india company was doing business from india to london and usa. there were other, smaller globe spanning corporations doing business in all parts of the world. the employment of locals, other nationals was low, however present to some degree.

Ah. I will clarify what I mean by multinational.

The official definition is as you described: A company doing business in other countries, with a home base in some country, and branches in other countries.

But in practice, today's multinational corporations are so huge that they have no allegiance to any country. They exist outside of any national boundaries.

[Oceania]

i think a lot of us are going to raise some whoopass about the animals and their treatment. there's no reason to treat animals so cruelly, as they have no need to experience that kinda s***. i don't think anyone does but least of all them. it makes me question the wisdom of the octaves and God itself.

[unity100]

Am I understanding you correctly that green needs to be only 1% open? I am very surprised by this! That is totally not how I understand it! My understanding is that green must be 51% open for STO harvest.

With only 1% open, STO/STS would lose their meaning.

you are forgetting that choice, what determines sto/sts, is related to yellow ray. and at the end of that ray's density, the choice is determined.

I didn't say anything about late 3D. I said individuation must occur in (late) 2D, in order to be harvested from 2D into 3D.

quite. however, we are currently in late 3d. and therefore, the behavior you have expressed can not be shown as something pertaining and natural to this d, leave aside the harvest.

What I mean is, there is a reason that we have family structures on this planet. It was designed to facilitate caring for others, with the idea being that, as one learns to love those close to him/her, the s/he can start expanding that love to others outside the family circle.

was it designed ? i didnt see anything in regard to that in Ra material. it may be from other sources.

With this planet so behind, it was probably decided that expecting the 3D entities to love others equally was too advanced, so starting with loving families was a way to progress towards the eventual goal of loving all.

or the family concept remained from 2d, as a form of orange ray identification.

Because this entire game we play, is to facilitate our spiritual evolution. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that our awareness and intentions would be factors in how the cosmic laws are applied to us.

we are talking about base mechanics of existence, like action-reaction, light traveling in a straight line and so on. intention is not a factor in these. intention can be a factor in the interactions of entities with each other.

a good example is despite being totally isolated from the effects of what he did, and its intentions great, the entity walking in to abraham lincoln to facilitate emancipation losing some polarity due to entities losing their lives in the civil war.

Are you saying that cats incur karma when they kill birds?

any action has consequences.

But again getting back to my point, I don't think a cat incurs as much karma when he kills a bird, as a human does when he kills a bird. There is an increase in responsibility, corresponding to the increase in awareness. I'm quite certain I read that in the Law of One, somewhere.

again, i am not talking about karma as in known in our spiritual literature.

its a simple principle - every action has a reaction.

that mother is free to choose how to handle her responsibility. however, even if intentions and situations may change the response of higher self, complex totality, or social memory complex or its totality towards her act, law of responsibility will still act indiscriminately.

Yes, but do you see that the law of responsibility will also act on her irresponsible behavior in neglecting her children?

yes it will.

That is just trading one irresponsible act for another (and a much greater irresponsible act, in my opinion). I guess what I'm hung up on is your view that she should immediately quit her job. Or did I misunderstand you?

what she does, is her choice. as i mentioned, law of responsibility will act on her in both choices.

Ah. I will clarify what I mean by multinational.

The official definition is as you described: A company doing business in other countries, with a home base in some country, and branches in other countries.

But in practice, today's multinational corporations are so huge that they have no allegiance to any country. They exist outside of any national boundaries.

yesterday's multinationals were not too different. east india company single handedly occupied and colonized india until late 18th century, when the crown took over. it was basically a private company until then.

companies spanning oceans were affecting politics in every country, just like how they do today. in a sense, nothing was too different.

[Monica]

you are forgetting that choice, what determines sto/sts, is related to yellow ray. and at the end of that ray's density, the choice is determined.

I'm not forgetting that. That doesn't mean we only need 1% green to be harvestable. I am curious which quotes have led you to that conclusion. Choice is only the first step. Choice must be continually reinforced, with power multiplied each time. That is what opens green. Choice comes from yellow, but cause opening of green. It is the opening of green that determines harvestability, not the initial choice.

the behavior you have expressed can not be shown as something pertaining and natural to this d, leave aside the harvest.

It was offered only as an analogy to this d.

True, the mechanics of each density aren't necessarily the same as of other densities. But my analogy was only to illustrate a point.

was it designed ? i didnt see anything in regard to that in Ra material. it may be from other sources.

I don't recall anything specifically about the design of family, but it seems like common sense to me, that family structures would help facilitate the learning of love, for those entities who failed to learn it before. And yes, other sources do support this also.

we are talking about base mechanics of existence, like action-reaction, light traveling in a straight line and so on. intention is not a factor in these. intention can be a factor in the interactions of entities with each other.

Friend, you and I both know from previous conversations, that this is an area we disagree in. I don't see these mechanisms as separate from consciousness. Rather, they are designed for the very purpose of evolving consciousness. Thus, in my view, consciousness cannot be separated from any 'mechanic.'

We've been over this ground, so I'll leave it at that.

a good example is despite being totally isolated from the effects of what he did, and its intentions great, the entity walking in to abraham lincoln to facilitate emancipation losing some polarity due to entities losing their lives in the civil war.

I have no conflict with that, as far as it fitting into my view.

its a simple principle - every action has a reaction.

I agree with that. However, in my view, it isn't limited to just physical/mechanical actions. Each thought, each intention, is also an action, generating its own reactions.

yes it will.

OK thank you. I felt that this was an important point.

[unity100]

you are forgetting that choice, what determines sto/sts, is related to yellow ray. and at the end of that ray's density, the choice is determined.

I'm not forgetting that. That doesn't mean we only need 1% green to be harvestable. I am curious which quotes have led you to that conclusion. Choice is only the first step. Choice must be continually reinforced, with power multiplied each time. That is what opens green. Choice comes from yellow, but cause opening of green. It is the opening of green that determines harvestability, not the initial choice.

choice comes from yellow, and when it is made, green is opened, leading to harvestability into 4d, which will be the work of opening the green.

foremost, you cant expect an entity which has just seen up to 3d only, to be able to open any other energy center, or manifest any consciousness than up to yellow, reliably and logically.

so, any harvest taking place, must take place over the lessons/densities which are ALREADY learned. not 'in future' learning.

so, 3d entities are harvested for 3d, 4d entities are harvested for 4d, and so it goes.

each harvest seeks consciousness of the density it is harvesting from, and all add up to 7.

I don't recall anything specifically about the design of family, but it seems like common sense to me, that family structures would help facilitate the learning of love, for those entities who failed to learn it before. And yes, other sources do support this also.

it seemed common sense to me a while ago too.

I agree with that. However, in my view, it isn't limited to just physical/mechanical actions. Each thought, each intention, is also an action, generating its own reactions.

surely. the entity can have a priority in queue for fixing the results of its actions etc. however, the need to fix the results of actions, do not change.

[Monica]

choice comes from yellow, and when it is made, green is opened, leading to harvestability into 4d, which will be the work of opening the green.

foremost, you cant expect an entity which has just seen up to 3d only, to be able to open any other energy center, or manifest any consciousness than up to yellow, reliably and logically.

so, any harvest taking place, must take place over the lessons/densities which are ALREADY learned. not 'in future' learning.

so, 3d entities are harvested for 3d, 4d entities are harvested for 4d, and so it goes.

each harvest seeks consciousness of the density it is harvesting from, and all add up to 7.

Your understanding of green is very different from mine, and from what I thought was the general consensus. I'm out of time today but I suggest we start a new thread on that topic.

surely. the entity can have a priority in queue for fixing the results of its actions etc. however, the need to fix the results of actions, do not change.

I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is the role of intention. If each intention is an action, then it too has its reactions. Meaning, intentions count.

[unity100]

I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is the role of intention. If each intention is an action, then it too has its reactions. Meaning, intentions count.

it is debatable that an intention is an action. even if you say that an intention is a thought that also creates a chain of events, the comparison of a thought in mind to an act made can not be made. it is like comparing a thought form, to a 4-5 d entity.

[Monica]

I'm out of time today but I suggest we start a new thread on that topic.

Done.

Strictly Law of One > Advanced Studies > Green Ray Requirement for Harvest to 4D

---

it is debatable that an intention is an action. even if you say that an intention is a thought that also creates a chain of events, the comparison of a thought in mind to an act made can not be made. it is like comparing a thought form, to a 4-5 d entity.

Yes, it is certainly debatable. (Another good topic for its own thread.)

I absolutely consider thoughts to be every bit as real and solid as physical action. Maybe even more so! My belief may stem from my earlier foundation based on the Edgar Cayce readings, as well magickal practices. Edgar Cayce frequently said, "Thoughts are things."

[unity100]

I absolutely consider thoughts to be every bit as real and solid as physical action. Maybe even more so!

that is not possible. it may only pass valid in densities where thoughts become things faster and faster. and even in such densities 'inspiration' will probably take the place of what we call 'thought' today. there is thought here, then action, there will be inspiration, then thought, instantly manifesting as action. in short there is a hatching sequence for all manifestations.

the conception of the action and action manifesting itself cannot be the same. even in higher densities, you may feel the inspiration/thought coming up, and may choose not to accept it, therefore allowing it to manifest it, taking it into action.

in this density, you may get the thought, but you may choose not to act on that thought.

My belief may stem from my earlier foundation based on the Edgar Cayce readings, as well magickal practices. Edgar Cayce frequently said, "Thoughts are things."

everything are 'things'. that doesnt make all of them the same. else there would be no need for a law of responsibility shortening lifespans of entities planet-wide because they refused to follow their thoughts with their actions.

[Monica]

that is not possible. it may only pass valid in densities where thoughts become things faster and faster. and even in such densities 'inspiration' will probably take the place of what we call 'thought' today. there is thought here, then action, there will be inspiration, then thought, instantly manifesting as action. in short there is a hatching sequence for all manifestations.

I disagree. I believe it is quite possible, based on my own experiences. Thought doesn't always result in action.

the conception of the action and action manifesting itself cannot be the same. even in higher densities, you may feel the inspiration/thought coming up, and may choose not to accept it, therefore allowing it to manifest it, taking it into action.

in this density, you may get the thought, but you may choose not to act on that thought.

I don't know how it fits in with densities, but there are realms in which thoughts are things.

everything are 'things'. that doesnt make all of them the same. else there would be no need for a law of responsibility shortening lifespans of entities planet-wide because they refused to follow their thoughts with their actions.

A couple of days ago, I rescued a baby bird. Had I not picked it up, the dogs or cats would surely have gotten it. It was a fledgling, almost ready to fly, but not quite. I mistakenly thought I could care for it for a few days, until it was strong enough to fly on its own. Setting it free was not an option, because there are dogs and cats all around. Even if I kept my own dogs and cats inside, there are neighbors' dogs and cats. The bird would not have survived on its own.

I called wildlife rescue, seeking advice. They told me to keep it in overnight, then put it back outside in the morning, so that its parents could care for it. They told me it would not learn to eat or fly, as long as I was caring for it.

Skeptical, I tried to feed it, nonetheless. No matter how I tried, I could not get it to open its beak and take food. I did manage to get it to take a few sips of water, but even that was insufficient.

So, lacking any alternative ideas, I did as advised. I put it in a wire cage, with no top, so it could fly up whenever it was ready. I put a pile of leaves and a branch with large leaves for shade from the sun.

It was a cloudy day, not nearly as hot as normal. I figured the bird would be ok with the shade from the large leaves. It was a very tiny bird.

Contrary to what the wildlife rescue people told me, the parents showed no interest in the baby. I could hear many birds in the trees in the neighbors' yards, but none came to care for the baby. Only once did a bird come near. S/he swooped down, alighted on the wire cage, then left.

2 hours later, the baby bird was dead.

??? Why did it die??? I have no idea! It wasn't hot enough, and with the shade, I don't think it died from heat. It had had some water, so I don't think it was from dehydration.

I have no idea why it died. I still feel very upset by this. I tried soooo hard to save it! The baby would be chirping, fearful, and I held it near my heart, and immediately it quieted. This happened several times. It was obvious it could feel love. This little bird touched my heart and my heart touched it.

But it died.

I don't know why. I tried. I did the best I could. I had good intentions. My heart was open. I felt love towards this helpless little creature. But I failed.

In a strictly mechanical universe, I would now reap negative consequences for my action, since it resulted in the death of the bird.

But we don't live in a strictly mechanical universe.

What I FELT, what I INTENDED, are far, far stronger than the ultimate outcome.

For me to now reap negative karma, because I failed in my efforts, would be absurd.

I WILL reap.

But it won't be repercussions for failing to save the bird.

I will reap new experiences, in which I can learn wisdom, so that next time I encounter a baby bird, I will know what to do, and I will succeed.

The bird's fate was the same, whether I helped it or not. What is different is my experience, AND, because I chose to take action, that baby bird just might have had a glimmer of self-awareness. I certainly looked it in the eyes enough, and talked to it, and drew out its individual consciousness. So maybe I assisted it on its spiritual journey. But its physical life ended, just the same as if the cat had gotten it.

It would make no sense for me to now reap some consequences because my good intentions failed.

It makes much more sense, that I would not reap consequences of a philosophical nature. I will now attract situations in which I can contemplate what happened, and probably be given new opportunities to make choices, with different outcomes.

That would be constructive. Reaping some negative repercussions because the bird died, wouldn't be constructive.

The designers of this planet aren't infallible, but neither are they stupid. There are reasons for the laws governing this planet. Those reasons should at least be somewhat reasonable, to reasonably intelligent entities.

It is reasonable to me, that I will now reap situations in which I can further develop wisdom, for such cases.

It isn't reasonable, that I would now suffer some negative fate, because my good intentions failed.

This example is intended to illustrate why I don't believe we live in a strictly mechanical universe.

The laws of cause and effect do indeed govern, but they don't apply to only physical actions. They apply also to intentions, emotions, and thought. All of these generate energy. Energy is an action that triggers a reaction. Intention, as energy, triggers a reaction.

[unity100]

I disagree. I believe it is quite possible, based on my own experiences. Thought doesn't always result in action.

i meant, you cannot hold thought of something in equal standing with its action, in this density.

I don't know how it fits in with densities, but there are realms in which thoughts are things.

:

the conception of the action and action manifesting itself cannot be the same. even in higher densities, you may feel the inspiration/thought coming up, and may choose not to accept it, therefore allowing it to manifest it, taking it into action.

in this density, you may get the thought, but you may choose not to act on that thought.

In a strictly mechanical universe, I would now reap negative consequences for my action, since it resulted in the death of the bird.

But we don't live in a strictly mechanical universe.

your interpretation for the event is wrong. it seems you acted within the law of responsibility.

The designers of this planet aren't infallible, but neither are they stupid. There are reasons for the laws governing this planet. Those reasons should at least be somewhat reasonable, to reasonably intelligent entities.

law of responsibility is apparently something that is not designed by any logoi, but infinite intelligence.

This example is intended to illustrate why I don't believe we live in a strictly mechanical universe.

The laws of cause and effect do indeed govern, but they don't apply to only physical actions. They apply also to intentions, emotions, and thought. All of these generate energy. Energy is an action that triggers a reaction. Intention, as energy, triggers a reaction.

regardless of the events, all participants in the event (you, the baby bird, the parents, the birds which were not the parents) will still be responsible with any results their actions and choices had created. positive, or negative, or mixture of them.

[Monica]

I absolutely consider thoughts to be every bit as real and solid as physical action. Maybe even more so!

that is not possible. it may only pass valid in densities where thoughts become things faster and faster. and even in such densities 'inspiration' will probably take the place of what we call 'thought' today. there is thought here, then action, there will be inspiration, then thought, instantly manifesting as action. in short there is a hatching sequence for all manifestations.

In 4D, thoughts are not things...they're beings!

50.9 Questioner: Can you tell me what the adept, after being able to hold the image for several minutes, does to affect planetary consciousness or affect positive polarity?
Ra: I am Ra. When the positive adept touches intelligent infinity from within, this is the most powerful of connections for it is the connection of the whole mind/body/spirit complex microcosm with the macrocosm. This connection enables the, shall we say, green-ray true color in time/space to manifest in your space/time. In green ray thoughts are beings. In your illusion this is normally not so.

It could be argued (and which you seem to be arguing) that this doesn't apply here in 3D.

But, if we are Wanderers from 4D or above, then it's reasonable that, to us, the truths we learned in our home density are still true for us. A 4+D Wanderer, who knows that thoughts are beings, cannot be convinced otherwise.

Not to mention the phrase normally not so, indicating that sometimes it is indeed so.

[βαθμιαίος]

50.9 Questioner: Can you tell me what the adept, after being able to hold the image for several minutes, does to affect planetary consciousness or affect positive polarity?
Ra: I am Ra. When the positive adept touches intelligent infinity from within, this is the most powerful of connections for it is the connection of the whole mind/body/spirit complex microcosm with the macrocosm. This connection enables the, shall we say, green-ray true color in time/space to manifest in your space/time. In green ray thoughts are beings. In your illusion this is normally not so.

Monica, thank you! I was looking for that quote earlier but couldn't find it.

[unity100]

I absolutely consider thoughts to be every bit as real and solid as physical action. Maybe even more so!

that is not possible. it may only pass valid in densities where thoughts become things faster and faster. and even in such densities 'inspiration' will probably take the place of what we call 'thought' today. there is thought here, then action, there will be inspiration, then thought, instantly manifesting as action. in short there is a hatching sequence for all manifestations.

In 4D, thoughts are not things...they're beings!

50.9 Questioner: Can you tell me what the adept, after being able to hold the image for several minutes, does to affect planetary consciousness or affect positive polarity?
Ra: I am Ra. When the positive adept touches intelligent infinity from within, this is the most powerful of connections for it is the connection of the whole mind/body/spirit complex microcosm with the macrocosm. This connection enables the, shall we say, green-ray true color in time/space to manifest in your space/time. In green ray thoughts are beings. In your illusion this is normally not so.

It could be argued (and which you seem to be arguing) that this doesn't apply here in 3D.

But, if we are Wanderers from 4D or above, then it's reasonable that, to us, the truths we learned in our home density are still true for us. A 4+D Wanderer, who knows that thoughts are beings, cannot be convinced otherwise.

Not to mention the phrase normally not so, indicating that sometimes it is indeed so.

you are missing the point of this part of discussion :

at any given level, there is a hierarchy of contraception->action. this is what seems to happen.

in 3d, its thought-> action,

in 4d maybe it is inspiration -> thought+action

in 5d maybe inspiration -> thought

in 6d and on maybe its 'glimpse of a concept' -> inspiration/thought

and so on.

in short, there is always the glimpse of something, and the acceptance and manifestation of that thing.

glimpse of something cannot be compared with acceptance and manifestation of that thing.