Share your vision for the harvest

[Tenet Nosce]

By benefits, do you mean getting harvested and making it to 4D?

Yes, along with all that it implies. I am getting an image of the cosmic equivalent of getting your driver license.

I think that there are those who might not consciously be working at spirituality, but still make it to 4D.

Absolutely. And in addition, there will be many who are consciously working at it, but who will find that they were point blank wrong in certain beliefs- including the possibility of myself being one of those people. But that is fine because it really isn't about what you "believe" anyway. It is about being able to hold enough light/love energy to be able to maintain your consciousness in an electrical form, without the requirement of a chemical body.

So I think there will be many people who will "make it" that will have to cop to some wildly incorrect beliefs about Jesus, for example. And there will be those who kind of had no clue what was going on, but nevertheless took life/catalyst as it came and used it as was intended. And then there are special cases, like children for example. I have to admit I don't have any sort of clear picture about how this all works for a three-year old, for example. But the message I get in my mind about it says, "Don't worry about the children. They will be fine."

Keep in mind we are like ten-ish people discussing this on an obscure forum off in a little corner of the Internet. Even if the harvest is as low as 1%, we are talking about roughly 70 million people here, the vast majority who have never heard of Ra beyond a history class reference to an ancient Egyptian god.

I think though that our hard work will put us ahead in 4D, perhaps as teachers or the like there. I mean I've gained much insight into working with energy that wouldn't be here if I hadn't worked. I have a stillness about me that wouldn't be here if I hadn't accepted myself.

Whatever mix or vibration you have to offer will suffice, and it will be easy and effortless to find others who are seeking the exact vibration. For example, in 3D say somebody starts their own business. Then they have to expend a tremendous amount of time, money, and effort in order to connect with others who are seeking their products and services. I imagine in 4D very little barrier will exist in this respect.

Which also points to another "pink elephant" in the room and that is any idea of a government that lives off of the energy of "transactions" between entities, and controls who gets to serve who, and what kind of service may be offered.

It's physically hard as well for me. Holding this light is tiring and involves a degree of pain as my body adapts to it, and keeps it in balance without me going crazy. Definitely have to stay grounded. Our work here is much more accelerated than in higher realms as you know. So all the pain and darkness I process here makes it that much better there.

To be blunt, I feel much more compassion for somebody in your position than the plight of the twenty-something pop culture junkie who was just "having fun" and never paid any attention to those "heavy" things of life.

But funny though it makes me lazy in other areas of life, like taking on extra work for money. I used to do what work I can for a bit extra here and there. But now all I want is free time to play and do the spiritual stuff.

But is it real laziness? Or is it because part of you realizes that very soon all of that extra effort spent "working" for money won't matter for diddly squat? Don't get me wrong, I am not living in some cave somewhere trying to be "off the grid". But I did kind of luck out after many years of just getting by to come across a business model that allows me to provide a genuine service to others that I don't need to feel "dirty" about. I have no boss, no employees, only a business partner who is the love of my life. I can work anytime, from anywhere, and to be blunt can earn more in a single transaction then I previously earned in an entire year.

I am not saying this to "show off" but to demonstrate that it is possible. But also to say that my current situation is the culmination of fifteen years of seeking a solution, and tackling some very formidable fears in the process. AND it is the result of consciously realizing that, like you, what I really wanted all along was more free time to play and do the spiritual stuff. So if somebody is envious of me, or thinks I am nothing more than a lazy bastard because I don't "go to work" fifty hours a week, all I can do is laugh. Because I have been doing the work. The real spiritual work.

There is a payoff here. One thing I like from the Abraham teachings is this idea of a huge "escrow account" awaiting the time when you can accept yourself as worthy enough to receive it. We reap what we sow. This is a very fundamental teaching that certainly is not confined to the Ra material.

Now, I don't know what to say about those that are purposely not trying. I know some that love to watch horror films of people being tortured, and live with lots of anger. They don't want to get better some of them. Those I think could definitely use more 3D experience.

See above. See, there is this idea floating about in the ethers that somehow through an act of "divine grace" those who have been sowing horror, torture, anger, hatred, envy, greed, rage, and ignorance, will get a ticket to the next level. This is ludicrous. Even if it were possible, you can't let such an unstable entity run amok in 4D wreaking havoc on everybody else's otherwise peaceful existence. And I really don't envision any scenario where suddenly for the masses, all three of their higher chakras are just going to open up and they will immediately be transformed into kind and loving creatures.

Again, I stand by the belief that every person, by now, has received more than enough catalyst necessary to pull their heads out of their behinds, spiritually speaking. If they haven't taken advantage of the opportunity that is their business.

It's strange to think that, what if after all this hard work I just barely make it. Well, at least I would have made it, but still. Is the bar the same for everyone (x amount of Creator's light = 4D)? Or we each have our own 4D threshold?

According to my understanding, the bar is same for everyone. It is 51% STO. Which I really don't find to be so insurmountably high. I think it involves having some sort of basic understanding that everything is connected, and that it makes obvious sense to treat others with a basic level of respect and dignity, and that controlling others is really not a beneficial way to live, for both the controller and the controlled.

This also applies to "family" dynamics. There are many who act respectful of others outside the family, but still believe that it is their right and duty to control their husband, or wife, or kids, or whatever. So there are many hypocrites as well out there on the edge who still need to heed the wake up call.

I think the bottom line of what we are looking for here is a basic commitment to one's self to NOT use controlling behaviors to manipulate others. ESPECIALLY those we love and care about, and EVEN if we think it is for their own good.

I don't think we need to be 100% effective at this, as it forms a large chunk of what 4D lessons are about. But I see the need for a basic willingness and agreement that controlling behaviors should be kept in check, and rooted out as much as possible.

[native]

Yes. That is all a manifestation from Ra thru Carla's lips.

A spider bite was a fifth density negative entity. It doesn't get much more metaphorical than that. That Maldek was destroyed by it's inhabitants is not fact other than it is an interpretation of the contact that is usable within the constructs of understanding- a way to apply analogy to a real life issue. And so on and so forth.

(to others: don't be upset, I find the material no less applicable because of this)

Exactly. There are two types of people: those that lean towards the analytical, and those that lean towards the intuitive. Ra MUST communicate the philosophy in such a way, that from any biased perspective, a person will allow themselves to be persuaded according to their bias. That is how they preserve free will.

[Tenet Nosce]

There are two types of people

There are two types of people: those that divide everybody into two camps and those who don't.

[3DMonkey]

Notice how many times you(anybody) have been misinterpreted by others. It is not because others did not apply logic to to specific word choice you used. Communication isn't held to the same standards as chemistry.

[native]

There are two types of people: those that divide everybody into two camps and those who don't.

Hehe..good quote. I've heard it before. It's best to say there is an infinite variable of people which is what I meant.

[βαθμιαίος]

A spider bite was a fifth density negative entity.

Not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, but according to Ra it was an actual spider that was led to attack by the fifth-density entity.

[native]

Notice how many times you(anybody) have been misinterpreted by others. It is not because others did not apply logic to to specific word choice you used. Communication isn't held to the same standards as chemistry.

Which is why I'd love to be telepathic. I clearly say things that sound completely different from what I meant.

[unity100]

Are you willing to admit that your need for clear, explicit, and undeniable proof as you interpret it, maybe, just MAY be why you see thematerial as clear, explicit, and undeniable? You clearly embody these traits, and you will not see through this bias. You feel you're unbiasedbecause the opposite of bias is infallible logic. You interpret the material as infallible logic.

i dont have such a need. a lot of things in that material are unprovable with the current information of the society we are living in.

clarity is important, yes. the need for clarity, is not a 'bias'. it is the fundamental cornerstone of what blue ray embodies, which then becomes a requirement for progressing in post early 6th density with 'a measure of honesty'.

as for infallibility or un-deniability and interpretation - i dont have any problems with these, as long as it doesnt employ double standards, or hypocritical.

there are things you can interpret, there are things you can not interpret. 'Law of One' may be a grand interpretation at any given point in entity's development, and yet things that pertain to events that happened in the past or mechanisms that govern the existence in this locale are not things you can 'interpret'.

it doesnt matter how much you interpret or metaphorize gravity. it exists. it will exist wherever you go, because it is something tied to the very concept of finity and concept of 'existing'. anything that exists as a discrete entity will have spiritual mass and attract other existing entities, period.

there is nothing interpretable about orion entry into this planet. circa 1600 AD, they entered in a vehicle. you may accept, or reject this totally, but you cant reinterpret it to be something that is totally different.

this is the main problem i have with this kind of approach - people do not 'reinterpret' or 'rewrite' or 'metaphorize' any of these, but, suddenly they feel a need when something touches their personal lives directly. this ranges from positive, negative, their implications in regard to our social life and related choices in tandem with economic system to what food you eat.

it is all good when harvest is some ambiguous, undefinable, easygoing event without any major disturbances to a person's life, with a good timespan into the future in which exact happening date or format is not known. daily life can go on without worrying much, 'all is one' and 'all will be ok' and so on and everyone's sitting pretty.

but its not as good when it is actually imminent, with discomforts.

I am not stupid and I know you don't think I am. And I've told you I'm not afraid of death. I have had death experiences. And I've told you I admittedly, in retrospect, must have had unconsious bias before and used to interpret the material as you interpret it.

being not afraid of death, and death being imminent, are two different things. regardless of how comfortable is an entity with death, the prospect of sudden unexpected death is still a very big change that psyche needs to adopt to.

I'm making a philosophically sound observation that the analytical mind fails when there is a need for intuitive perception. Ra states that themselves. The purpose of intuition is to inform intelligence. You seem to totally approach the material from the standpoint of logic only. That's not how our experience works. I don't think you're able to understand how others can interpret the material differently because that's your analytical bias working. Or maybe my bias is at fault here, and I'm wrong? I just wish you would acknowledge that you don't know the answer.

i approach DIRECT questions with specific wording asking for specific answers which in turn get replied with DIRECT answers with specific wording, AS they are.

i dont 'interpret' them.

don asks whether harvest was going to happen in 2011, or be spread out. the answer is, 2011. NOT spread out. there is nothing to interpret in this, other than how long within that year harvest may take. ra, like you and me, are not stupid and incompetent to the point of not being able to say harvest would take from date x, to date y over a period of time, if it was, after a SPECIFIC question asked to query precisely that.

attempting to interpret this to be a whopass 900 years period, is similar to below :

a friend comes over to your house and you asks whether he would have soda or tea. he answers, 'tea'. but you 'interpret' this to be soda and give him soda.

it is not a philosophical question querying his feelings or beliefs regarding possibility of existence of god. it is a simple, basic question.

Again..I've held the same argument you present and clearly saw the logic as you saw it. But now I don't. I'm either delusional, or balancing things with intuitive perception. You would think Ra would subtly embody this concept for the entire working.

excuse me, but there is nothing interpretable or logic/intuition related in the q/a you talk about - specific answer to a specific question.

i dont think you are giving your friend soda when he replies tea, by conveniently reinterpreting when he meant tea, he actually wanted to drink soda. therefore, you shouldnt do the above either.

there is nothing related to logic/intuition here. it is simple linguistics and grammar. and it can only be argued otherwise when you give soda to your friend who asked for tea, telling him that you 'interpreted' it to mean soda, and your friend actually confirms it to be true.

Whatever mix or vibration you have to offer will suffice, and it will be easy and effortless to find others who are seeking the exact vibration. For example, in 3D say somebody starts their own business. Then they have to expend a tremendous amount of time, money, and effort in order to connect with others who are seeking their products and services. I imagine in 4D very little barrier will exist in this respect.

Which also points to another "pink elephant" in the room and that is any idea of a government that lives off of the energy of "transactions" between entities, and controls who gets to serve who, and what kind of service may be offered.

the biggest elephant in that room would be the concept of 'transaction' through a 'business' in between entities which dwelt in a dimension of free giving.

To be blunt, I feel much more compassion for somebody in your position than the plight of the twenty-something pop culture junkie who was just "having fun" and never paid any attention to those "heavy" things of life.

except that that entity could have been much more refined and post-catalyst to the point that no vibrations or thought forms of orange or yellow negative being able to stick with his manifestation.

Exactly. There are two types of people: those that lean towards the analytical, and those that lean towards the intuitive. Ra MUST communicate the philosophy in such a way, that from any biased perspective, a person will allow themselves to be persuaded according to their bias. That is how they preserve free will.

please be reasonable.

there is nothing 'intuitive' about giving soda to someone who asked for tea.

---

A spider bite was a fifth density negative entity.

Not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, but according to Ra it was an actual spider that was led to attack by the fifth-density entity.

my my this is a good example - now with the analytical/intuitive nonsense, it is alright if someone interprets a spider bite to be something else than, well, a spider bite.

this is what im talking about.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Spirituality is definitely hard work.

Indeed. Which is why I think it more than a little absurd to imagine that those who did not do the work would get to reap the benefits of those who did.

Which leads to the next dilemma... we already have a massive gap in the population between those who are spiritually aware, and those who are not. Harvest only stands to widen that gap even further.

So it really doesn't make sense to me to have whatever portion of the population take a massive leap forward in their consciousness, and then throw them right back in with the rest of the population in order to "live out their normal lives". There is no more "normal" life for a harvested entity in 3D. It would be like accepting somebody into a college program, but restricting their choice to high school level review classes.

A newly harvested entity would do better in an environment where they have the freedom to play with and express their newfound abilities without concern of exacerbating inferiority complexes among the masses, or being tempted toward elitism, or infringing upon the free will of those who choose to remain oblivious to the larger life.

Nobody benefits from a situation where 4DJoeBob is showing off his new found telepathy powers to a group of people who have no such abilities, and are very far off from acquiring them. 4DJoeBob would do better in an environment where telepathy is "no big deal" and where nobody is trying to hide things and present false agendas.

Sometimes it appears that people get so concerned about those who are not harvested, even the trees and animals, yet there is little concern expressed for what will become of the newly harvested. They are like babies, just hatched from the womb. They need to be placed in a loving, supportive, nurturing, caring environment where they are free to play, run around, fall down, and make mistakes.

This is what I really don't get. This is the sticking point for me. Even if we allow that harvest "starts" one day, and then proceeds for 600 years or whatever, it seems to me to be quite a precarious situation for all parties to have such a wildly segregated population where harvested entities are running around performing "miracles" and other such impossible feats, while the rest of the population looks on. Such a scenario seems like it would be a really cruel joke to me.

I don't see how this could lead anywhere positive. I am open to hearing ideas about how the above scenario could all work out, but I have deeply sought for such a possibility and have come up empty.

There are newly harvested entities among us now. They are in dual-activated bodies.

63.15 Questioner: Would the purpose in transitioning to Earth prior to the complete changeover then be for the experience to be gained here before the harvesting process?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. These entities are not Wanderers in the sense that this planetary sphere is their fourth-density home planet. However, the experience of this service is earned only by those harvested third-density entities which have demonstrated a great deal of orientation towards service-to-others. It is a privilege to be allowed this early an incarnation as there is much experiential catalyst in service to other-selves at this harvesting.

So, putting a newly harvested entity into an environment like this isn't cruel, it's a privilege. So if the condition were to last until all 3D entities died naturally, and the world was populated with more and more transitional bodies, it would be a great advantage for those newly harvested entities.

[3DMonkey]

A spider bite was a fifth density negative entity.

Not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, but according to Ra it was an actual spider that was led to attack by the fifth-density entity.

Yes, exactly. An actual spider bite was given the spiritual explanation of a fifth density influence by the mind. Fifth density being = spirit archetype. Spider bite= body archetype. Application of wisdom= mind archetype. Put them all together and we get an allegorical explanation to apply to the complex m/b/s.


(ala peanut butter sandwhiches- if someone would, please reply to this post with a critique of using the three phases of archetypes to explain something. I predict unity100 will respond to your reply with even greater critique. Try me )

[Tenet Nosce]

but its not as good when it is actually imminent, with discomforts.

Exactly.

the biggest elephant in that room would be the concept of 'transaction' through a 'business' in between entities which dwelt in a dimension of free giving.

Right. I am now bumping up against the point where, in fact, words really start to lose their meaning. I imagine there will be something analagous to a "business" in 4D, meaning some general form which a particular service takes. But beyond that, in terms of receiving pieces of paper for service rendered and using them do go buy a banana (or apple) to eat for lunch... it really doesn't make sense.

Which further underscores the idea that fourth density life is so utterly different from anything we are currently now experiencing, that it boggles the mind to imagine that the whole of 3D life will gradually be transformed into 4D life, whether it is over a course of six years, or six hundred years. I really don't see how any interpretation, literal, metaphorical, analytical, or intuitive, can so easily overlook the necessity of such an obvious discontinuity of experience which accepting a concept like "harvest" requires.

Again, if the word "harvest" was chosen to describe the experience, then it was chosen with good reason and intention, with full knowledge of what the word "harvest" means to an English speaker here on the 3D world. When the fruits are ripe for picking, they are harvested. They are not left on the tree to rot, so as to not cause discomfort or jealousy among its neighbor fruits. They are not harvested, yet placed in a bushel in the garden waiting until every last fruit has reached harvestability, meanwhile being left out in the elements and being devoured by insects.

They are harvested, taken away from the garden, and put to a higher purpose. There is nothing, anywhere in the concept of "harvest" as commonly used in the English, which implies a "gradualness" to the event. One minute the fruit is there on the tree, not yet harvested, and the next minute the fruit is separated from the tree, having now been harvested.

[native]

Unity. In post #85 you seem to be saying that your notion of harvest even within this thread has molded. Am I misunderstanding you?

Pitting your infallible logic against yourself, the Unity of today would have disagreed with the Unity of a week ago, and a flurry of explanation would have been provided to each of your selves to justify this. Fascinating. I have nothing left to say brother.

[3DMonkey]

There are two types of people: those that divide everybody into two camps and those who don't.

Hehe..good quote. I've heard it before. It's best to say there is an infinite variable of people which is what I meant.

Peter VS Paul

[unity100]

Right. I am now bumping up against the point where, in fact, words really start to lose their meaning. I imagine there will be something analagous to a "business" in 4D, meaning some general form which a particular service takes.

when there is something needs to be done, people come together, and do it collectively, and share the results. not only that has been there back into ancient history, it is still practiced in rural communities in various geographies. cooperation.

Unity. In post #85 you seem to be saying that your notion of harvest even within this thread has molded. Am I misunderstanding you?

Pitting your infallible logic against yourself, the Unity of today would have disagreed with the Unity of a week ago, and a flurry of explanation would have been provided to each of your selves to justify this. Fascinating. I have nothing left to say brother.

its not 'my logic'. its plain, clearly worded direct questions and answers in a written material we are studying.

unity of today would have disagreed with unity of a week ago, since unity of then was not in possession of the quotes clearing the matter in precision. in another sense, unity of today provided the clearly worded quotes from the material to unity of past week, and the unity of past week, is now unity of today.

whereas you on the other hand, are doing all kinds of escapism for NOT accepting a clearly worded, specific question/answer english sentence as it is.

there is no logic/intuition or fallibility/infallibility in this.

'proving fallibility' will not help your argument, since it was never claimed at any given point, and if there is any fallibility or infallibility that is to be put into question, it is the material we are speaking on. since, all conclusions of the unity of past week was based on them. not his 'interpretations', as you have a tendency to base yours on yourself.

when unity of past week was provided with quotes that changed his mind, he changed his mind, instead of resorting to 'intuition' or 'interpretation'. if we take you and your unchanging 'gradualism obligation' as an example in this case for not changing perspective with provided information :

- started off with holding harvest and 'transition/move' into 4d as one and same
- when it was shown that they were not, you switched to arguing harvest had possibly started in 1937 with the move into 4d vibrations
- when it was shown that there were entities waiting for harvest despite being disincarnate, this time you outright went and slapped a 900 year harvest duration out of nowhere

and as of this moment you are still dwelling on it, despite a clear, purpose-specific question asked for querying exactly the same thing, and answer being contrary to what you hold in view as of now. you are just ignoring it and this time :

- going the way of claiming 'intuition' in 'reinterpretation' of a clearly worded, specifically asked question and its plain, blunt, direct answer

see, your perspective has not budget a bit right from the start, despite your responses changed with the information provided. the fixation of having a harvest that is prolonged so long to an extent that it would not matter in a person's lifetime in a direct, all encompassing and discomforting fashion always remains there and seeks a way out.

it didnt happen as such with me. i had had thought that harvest would happen at a given time, and then entities would leave as they saw fit, without having any need for dying for harvest. yet, when i found quotes that were clearly against these with no room for interpretation, i CHANGED my perspective. did not seek a way around the information.

[Tenet Nosce]

Which is why I'd love to be telepathic.

I know! Isn't it exasperating? So how much more exasperating would it be if, say 1-3% of the population becomes telepathic, while the rest does not? Please describe how this leads to a positive outcome, according to your understanding of the process.

I am looking for some very practical, everyday situations, like going to work and you are telepathic, but your boss is not. Or perhaps you are the telepathic boss, and you can now perceive the hidden thoughts of your employees. What happens if a person high up in the CIA becomes telepathic? Do they tell the rest of the agency? What about a wife/husband pair- one is telepathic, the other is not. How about a teenage daughter who becomes telepathic, but both of her parents are not? Or make up some examples of your own- I am just trying to throw out some ideas here.

It just seems to be that it would be incredibly disabling for everybody to have a population where a small minority have access to "superhuman" powers, while the vast majority does not. I feel like a broken record, having stated something to this effect several times and nobody has really responded. But I think it is an important point which ties directly into the heart of the matter.

[native]

Unity - You're not being honest with yourself brother, and you're not fooling anyone. You've been studying this material for 15 years I believe you once said. You've been over these quotes dozens of times, and I've seen you argue this topic endlessly since I've joined this site. There is always room for learning and change, yes.

The Unity of today does not agree with the Unity of a week ago because you can't make a definitive statement. None of us can. We don't know the answer. You won't admit it, and that's fine. Embrace misunderstanding and be open to the possibility that others may be correct. In other words, you may be wrong.

---

It just seems to be that it would be incredibly disabling for everybody to have a population where a small minority have access to "superhuman" powers, while the vast majority does not. I feel like a broken record, having stated something to this effect several times and nobody has really responded. But I think it is an important point which ties directly into the heart of the matter.

I'll respond when I get back from work.

[Tenet Nosce]

when there is something needs to be done, people come together, and do it collectively, and share the results. not only that has been there back into ancient history, it is still practiced in rural communities in various geographies. cooperation.

Right. We are getting sidelined here. All I am talking about was with respect to specific forms of service. People will continue to pursue specialized interests, and it will continue to make sense to say something to the effect of, "Look here is something which needs to be done... let's call 4DJoeBob in for this one, he excels in this sort of thing." And what is more, everybody else working on the project will actually be happy and grateful for the opportunity to participate in such a teach/learning instead of different egos getting jealous of one another, and harboring resentments against 4DJoeBob because he happens to be an expert in that particular area of need.

[Bring4th_Austin]

They're not extreme interpretations. They're rather tame interpretations of very ambiguous words.

really ?

so, if someone gives an answer like '2011' to a question that is in the form of 'whether it will happen at a certain date or it will be something that is spread out', that is ambiguous ?

you have redefined ambiguous. this is exactly the problem here. its like tenet says - don asks a specific question. Ra gives a specific answer. just like how they always do.

Going back to a way earlier discussion we had, I was trying to point out the words which Ra says which would leave it readily open for interpretation by anyone. The "probability" and "approximately" are open for interpretation to someone who would wish to still believe in harvest if nothing happened in the near future. "It was just a probability, as well as an approximation." That isn't something that could be argued with, and would simply have to be dismissed on one's own logic. I wasn't trying to say that harvest could last that long, or that the process was that long, simply that it could be argued by someone that 2011, 2012, or anytime in the near future, isn't necessarily the date for harvest.

and then someone comes, and slaps it with the word ambiguous. making ANYthing in the material, basically, totally ambiguous.

Besides the probabilities and approximations, what I am calling ambiguous is the actual mechanic of harvest, as none of us know what it is or how it will happen. We know that a gateway to intelligent infinity is opened. The ambiguous part I see is the fact that it could easily be that it is opened for those entities in time/space, and then all those passing into time/space after that time period will have access to it as well. I'm not denying the possibility that it may happen for those in space/time, but that is not the only possible scenario I see.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...=1&ss=1#18

here i can effectively say that actually Ra meant that the 150 harvested entities were a social memory complex, despite they explicitly mentioned that they were not.

its ambiguous. because we want it to.

Ra says here "these entities are not a social memory complex," whereas Ra never says "entities within incarnation will be aware of the opening of the gateway, entities within incarnation will be aware of the harvesting, entities within incarnation will immediately be harvested." I (now) realize you've changed your viewpoint somewhat, but I'm still seeing both possibilities, where "harvest," starting instantly and lasting until the last person unharvested person in incarnation at that point dies naturally, only being harvested after death...or harvested instantly from space/time, or somewhere in between.

And this is why this debate is getting outrageous. You think you have the right to throw psychological labels on people who argue against you because we see something that is very obvious to us that has nothing to do with bias or any sort of psychological hangup.

excuse me, but if you think any debate is getting outrageous, you or anyone have the option of refraining from discussing. just like how i do in numerous discussions. this would save time and effort for both parties when one of the parties is saying that ...............

really. what im even explaining here.

don asks whether harvest will be at a certain date, or spread out, Ra answers it will be at a certain date. arguing it otherwise, pushes the other party to conclude it is due to personal bias. because, there is no way someone would 'interpret' anything in real life so conversely - you go to the grocers, you tell him you want fresh apples, and ask which of the two crates are fresher - the person replies the blue crate. you dont go get the apples from the red crate after that. your question was specific, answer was specific, the result is straightforward. the grocer doesnt mean 'red, or possibly red'.

But if the person replies "it's probable/possible that the red crate is fresher," is that not an ambiguous answer? It means that they might be, or they might not be. I was never contending that harvest could LAST for so many years...from the material, what I gather, the possibility I'm seeing is that harvest would last until the last person who was alive during harvest dies naturally...could be 50-100 years generously. My main contention about being open for interpretation was "approximately" and "probability/possibility." It's pretty safe to assume harvest is nigh, as I'm sure most here have done, but like I said, if nothing noticeable happens in the next few years, and someone wants to believe it still could, could point at those words and say "see, it's still possible."

I guarantee you I would have no problem dying this second, but I don't see instant harvest as the only interpretation of Ra's words. I find your interpretations to be in the extreme, but I'm not going to say "Well obviously unity, you have something wrong with 3D existence. You can't stand it, so you want harvest to be instant and death to come soon because you no longer like this existence."

you dont need to refrain from saying it. and i would not refrain from answering it. however, you should pay proper attention to discussions before going out and making conclusions, like how i am doing.

I would refrain from saying it because I don't think interactions on this forum are enough to publicly psychoanalyze someone. And also, my comment also spawns from your original post in this thread stating "the fact that this sudden vs gradual argument continues, even among those who have been studying it for years, is precisely due to reasons tenet explained about the biases." The reasons I saw Tenet explain were painting the "gradualist" side of the debate with a broad brush of psychoanalysis. I "agreed" with your statement in a snarky smartass attempt to make a point.

But you are right that I should pay attention to these discussions before making some conclusions I did. It seems I missed two pages of discussion in this thread, and did jump to some conclusions I shouldn't have. I was drawing from the first post to the post I responded to without regarding the rest in my reply .

ironically, the people who had an instant harvest and death perceptive did not get enraged or inflamed when i have pointed out my earlier perspective with the non-death harvest, however, when i have shared my new findings that showed a short duration, near harvest with death necessity, i first had encountered constant reiterations, outright denial of PLAIN sentences and answers that were given in quotes, then someone - in this case you - came up and accused me of various stuff, ranging from extreme interpretations to outrageousness this and that. the instant harvest + death people were not so aggravated.

Well, seeing how I was ignorant of your new revelations, by "aggravation" had little to do with your new interpretations, or your interpretations at all, and had a lot more to do with my perception of your applying bias to ones who disagree with you.

Are you a trained psychologist? Have you done an extensive psychological study on a large various group of people who see different interpretations of Ra's words? Have you let your peers review this study to make sure you have no bias of your own affecting the results?

No?

i may have issues with this 3d planet, and i may be wanting to die, or i may be content with it and not wanting to leave.

neither of these, has caused me to go as far to totally deny something that is explicitly stated in the material i trust. as you can see, my perspective and approach, have totally changed with my new findings in the course of these 2 days. since these two perspectives are totally opposite of each other, one of those would mean to contradict and oppose any bias i would have on this matter.

I do now see this, and I was never accusing you of arriving at conclusions due to bias (like I said, my initial post stating those who have reached any conclusion have done so because of bias was to turn your own statement around on you to prove a point and had little to do with how I felt.) I was rather accusing you of being stuck on one opinion and perspective and supporting it in spite of the material. Which luckily it was rather easy for you to throw this back in my face and prove me wrong. I can't say that after reading the rest of the thread I completely understand your new perspective

I'm not so sure your diagnosis of people who disagree with you would be objectively accepted then. Objectively, it's even fishier that you're applying it to everyone who happens to disagree with you. How convenient that only those who disagree with you do so out of bias...

there is no occasion i applied to anyone who happened to be disagree with me. however, when someone refuses a direct answer to a direct and explicit question, and comes up as red instead of blue, it would be ridiculous not to bring biases into table. and please, next time you are inflamed, do not start making up irrelevant nonsense like 'everyone who happens to disagree with you' etc and so on. there is endless amount of discussions here people not only agreed with me but went on to call me a great many variety of things, and the times i have brought any kind of bias into table, are not even a handful.

This was mainly in response to your initial post, which from my gatherings (you agreeing with Tenet's thought that the reason the debate was going on was because gradualists were stuck with some bias), aren't nonsense. I've explicitly seen Tenet address the whole of the "gradualist standpoint" as being caught on some sort of bias, and this is what I was thinking you were agreeing with. I don't think it is irrelevant nonsense for me to think so, because I can point out these posts you seem to have agreed with as for why the discussion still goes on.

no - bring me the quotes regarding harvest that is contrary to a short harvest and death necessity scenario. please do.

Like I said, I don't know if I completely understand your new perspective. I tried reading the thread over a couple times...what do you consider "short harvest?" I don't think there's any Ra material to support a harvest that is longer than the remaining lifespan of entities incarnated during harvest, only material which could support that harvest wouldn't start for a number of years, thus not being over for an even longer number of years.

Is the "short harvest" you talk about basically what I am saying? Only long enough for the entities to die of natural causes?

the fact that you are shooting from the hip in the form of 'you are taking only what you want to fit your own view' shows you have not at all read this thread, or perceived it, or remember what you read enough to make out who said what.

You're right, it does show rather explicitly that I didn't read the thread (rather ignored it), and I apologize for that.

i find that extremely tiring, and totally disrespectful in regard to the basics of discussion.

I wouldn't disagree.

[Tenet Nosce]

The reasons I saw Tenet explain were painting the "gradualist" side of the debate with a broad brush of psychoanalysis. I "agreed" with your statement in a snarky smartass attempt to make a point.

See... this is really the crux of the problem here. Allow me to illustrate:

I am having great difficulty seeing how this could be interpreted to mean anything different. In my experience, those who forward a "gradualist" scenario are reacting negatively to the possibility of being abruptly separated from loved ones.

Please define where is the "broad brush" here in this statement. I was expressing difficulty understanding something, and speaking from my own experience.

Moreover, as much as I appreciate sarcasm, snarkiness, and smartassness, based on results they are highly ineffective tools to further increased understanding in an online discussion forum. And I am going to assume that you already know this, but continue to float snarky remarks out in threads anyway.

If you are an example of somebody who disproves my characterization, then you could have simply stated so instead of inciting chaos and contributing to the derailment of yet another thread.

You could have said, "Hey Tenet, I am one who forwards a gradualist scenario, but it has nothing to do with resisting separation from my loved ones. Rather, it has to do with ___________."

But you didn't. Instead you chose to play the snarky card. Again. And not only did you play the snarky card, you played it in another thread, namely this one. Then you exited the thread stage left, ignoring two pages of comments, and then jumped back in fists flying.

What, exactly, is the purpose of this behavior?

[βαθμιαίος]

There is nothing, anywhere in the concept of "harvest" as commonly used in the English, which implies a "gradualness" to the event.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I mentioned in a previous harvest thread that when we harvest tomatoes from our garden, we do so gradually, over a period of several months, as fruits gradually ripen. However, when farmers harvest wheat, they bring in a combine and take it all at once.

[Tenet Nosce]

There are newly harvested entities among us now. They are in dual-activated bodies.

We are not talking about one or two entities strewn about the planet who have found the gateway to intelligent infinity by various means. We are talking about millions, or even hundreds of millions of people, coming "online" more or less simultaneously.

Questioner: Thank you. I would like to take as an example an entity, starting before birth, who is roughly high on the seniority list for positive polarization and possible harvestability at the end of this cycle and follow a full cycle of his experience starting before his incarnation—which body is activated, the process of becoming incarnate, the activation of the third-density physical body, the process as the body moves through this density and is acted upon by catalysts, the process of death, and the activation of the various bodies so that we make a full circuit from a point prior to incarnation back around through incarnation and death; you might say one cycle of incarnation in this density. Could you do that for me?

If there is any one quote in all of the material which speaks to this issue... this is it. So what does Ra have to say?

Ra: I am Ra. Your query is most distorted for it assumes that creations are alike. Each mind/body/spirit complex has its own patterns of activation and its own rhythms of awakening. The important thing for harvest is the harmonious balance between the various energy centers of the mind/body/spirit complex. This is to be noted as of relative import. We grasp the thrust of your query and will make a most general answer stressing the unimportance of such arbitrary generalizations.

The entity, before incarnation, dwells in the appropriate, shall we say, place in time/space. The true color type of this location will be dependent upon the entity’s needs. Those entities for instance which, being Wanderers, have the green, blue, or indigo true color core of mind/body/spirit complex will have rested therein.

Entrance into incarnation requires the investment or activation of the indigo-ray or etheric body for this is the “formmaker.” The young or small physical mind/body/spirit complex has the seven energy centers potentiated before the birthing process. There are also analogs in time/space of these energy centers corresponding to the seven energy centers in each of the seven true color densities. Thus in the microcosm exists all the experience that is prepared. It is as though the infant contains the universe.

The patterns of activation of an entity of high seniority will undoubtedly move with some rapidity to the green-ray level which is the springboard to primary blue. There is always some difficulty in penetrating blue primary energy for it requires that which your people have in great paucity; that is, honesty. Blue ray is the ray of free communication with self and with otherself. Having accepted that an harvestable or nearly harvestable entity will be working from this green-ray springboard one may then posit that the experiences in the remainder of the incarnation will be focused upon activation of the primary blue-ray of freely given communication, of indigo ray, that of freely shared intelligent energy, and if possible, moving through this gateway, the penetration of violet-ray intelligent infinity. This may be seen to be manifested by a sense of the consecrate or hallowed nature of everyday creations and activities.

Upon the bodily complex death, as you call this transition, the entity will immediately, upon realization of its state, return to the indigo form-maker body and rest therein until the proper future placement is made.

Here we have the anomaly of harvest. In harvest the entity will then transfer its indigo body into violet-ray manifestation as seen in true color yellow. This is for the purpose of gauging the harvestability of the entity. After this anomalous activity has been carefully completed, the entity will move into indigo body again and be placed in the correct true color locus in space/time and time/space at which time the healings and learn/teachings necessary shall be completed and further incarnation needs determined.

1. It is a harvestable, or nearly harvestable, entity that experiences an opening of the blue and indigo rays during the remainder of the incarnation. Not a harvested entity.

2. Upon body complex death (which becomes instantaneously available at harvest), the entity immediately returns to the indigo form-maker body.

3. Harvest is an anomaly.

4. After the anomalous activity has been completed, the entity will make adjustments to its location BOTH in time/space AND in space/time according to their specific needs of future incarnation.

63.15 Questioner: Would the purpose in transitioning to Earth prior to the complete changeover then be for the experience to be gained here before the harvesting process?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. These entities are not Wanderers in the sense that this planetary sphere is their fourth-density home planet. However, the experience of this service is earned only by those harvested third-density entities which have demonstrated a great deal of orientation towards service-to-others. It is a privilege to be allowed this early an incarnation as there is much experiential catalyst in service to other-selves at this harvesting.

So, putting a newly harvested entity into an environment like this isn't cruel, it's a privilege. So if the condition were to last until all 3D entities died naturally, and the world was populated with more and more transitional bodies, it would be a great advantage for those newly harvested entities.

1. You overlooked, right there in the query, where Don says "prior to the complete changeover", and Ra did not correct him.

2. Then you overlooked that Ra says "at this harvesting", not during this harvesting process which goes on for multiple generations.

Also ***PINK ELEPHANT ALERT*** what is going on while all these 3D bodies are "dying naturally"? Are 3D entities going to be struck down with mass infertility? Are 4D children going to start popping out of 3D bodies? This needs to be explained in order to take the gradualist view seriously.

Moreover:

Questioner: Thank you. The forgetting process was puzzling me because you said that the fourth-density activated people who were here who had been harvested did not have the same forgetting problem. Could you tell me why the Wanderer loses his memory?

Ra: I am Ra. The reason is twofold. First, the genetic properties of the connection between the mind/body/spirit complex and the cellular structure of the body is different for third-density than for third/fourth-density.

Secondly, the free will of third-density entities needs be preserved. Thus Wanderers volunteer for third-density genetic or DNA connections to the mind/body/spirit complex. The forgetting process can be penetrated to the extent of the Wanderer remembering what it is and why it is upon the planetary sphere. However, it would be an infringement if Wanderers penetrated the forgetting so far as to activate the more dense bodies and thus be able to live, shall we say, in a god-like manner. This would not be proper for those who have chosen to serve.

I would comment here, but it would pretty much involve repeating the entire quote. So I will let it stand as spoken, and let the carnage of subjective interpretation commence.

---

(ala peanut butter sandwhiches- if someone would, please reply to this post with a critique of using the three phases of archetypes to explain something. I predict unity100 will respond to your reply with even greater critique. Try me )

Ra: I am Ra. The entity has been using transferred energy for most of this session due to its depleted physical levels. We shall begin this rather complex answer which is interesting but do not expect to finish it. Those portions which we do not respond to we ask that you requestion us on at a working in your future.

[Richard]

There is nothing, anywhere in the concept of "harvest" as commonly used in the English, which implies a "gradualness" to the event.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I mentioned in a previous harvest thread that when we harvest tomatoes from our garden, we do so gradually, over a period of several months, as fruits gradually ripen. However, when farmers harvest wheat, they bring in a combine and take it all at once.

The term "Harvest" is used in many conservation programs with regards to fish and game management. It refers to a controlled kill, if you will, of a certain percentage of game in order to maintain a healthy population. Kind of eerie when you think about it like that as applied to the LOO. But in no way does it refer to taking the entire population.

But in todays ever decreasing wildlife habitats and humanity's ever enroaching presence...not to mention enviromental meddling. You either maintain the wildlife populations artificially or watch the entire species die of starvation.

Sort of makes the case for the need to die before "Harvest".

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/w...tegy99.pdf

or

http://mercury.bio.uaf.edu/courses/wlf20...0yield.pdf

Richard

[βαθμιαίος]

Yes, exactly. An actual spider bite was given the spiritual explanation of a fifth density influence by the mind. Fifth density being = spirit archetype. Spider bite= body archetype. Application of wisdom= mind archetype. Put them all together and we get an allegorical explanation to apply to the complex m/b/s.

I don't think I understand. Are you saying Jim wasn't actually bitten by a spider, or that the spider wasn't actually manipulated by the negative entity, or ...?

Which spirit archetype do you think the fifth-density being represents, and which body archetype does the spider bite represent, and which mind archetype does the application of wisdom represent?

Maybe I'm being too literal here and missing your point.

[Tenet Nosce]

I'm not sure I agree with that. I mentioned in a previous harvest thread that when we harvest tomatoes from our garden, we do so gradually, over a period of several months, as fruits gradually ripen. However, when farmers harvest wheat, they bring in a combine and take it all at once.

You are looking at it from the point of view of the harvester, not the harvested. For each individual fruit, there is a discrete transition between "not-harvested" and "harvested".

As I said earlier, I can see the process extending for months, not much past a year. Certainly not extending past generations.

But perhaps it would be more constructive to discuss if you first shared the time frame and scenarios you have in mind...

[Bring4th_Austin]

The reasons I saw Tenet explain were painting the "gradualist" side of the debate with a broad brush of psychoanalysis. I "agreed" with your statement in a snarky smartass attempt to make a point.

See... this is really the crux of the problem here. Allow me to illustrate:

I am having great difficulty seeing how this could be interpreted to mean anything different. In my experience, those who forward a "gradualist" scenario are reacting negatively to the possibility of being abruptly separated from loved ones.

Please define where is the "broad brush" here in this statement. I was expressing difficulty understanding something, and speaking from my own experience.

That would be true for this particular statement, but I was referring to posts such as the one stating "A gradualist view is very human-centric," continuing on explaining that gradualists are upset about the idea of death or "leaving someone behind."

Moreover, as much as I appreciate sarcasm, snarkiness, and smartassness, based on results they are highly ineffective tools to further increased understanding in an online discussion forum. And I am going to assume that you already know this, but continue to float snarky remarks out in threads anyway.

I've accounted for the one snarky remark...have I made more I'm unaware of? I did just find this comment you got offended at, which is rather self-incriminating in a different sense for me:

A lot of people think they're interpretation is the only one which can be correct and they have (as we see) pages and pages of logical arguments to support their opinion, which like I said, I feel is derived from bias.

I won't ignore that I'm currently trying accuse others of doing something which I explicitly did here. I don't see a reason for myself, as in this situation, or anyone else to bring supposed bias into a logical argument. But, aside from that, I was rather perplexed by how offended you were at this statement, because it wasn't a jab at you or Unity or anyone else. We have ALL been discussing this for pages and pages, and ALL presenting logical arguments, and that's the point I was trying to make. The statement wasn't argumentative, but rather to point out that both camps, instant vs. gradual, have supplied many many logical arguments.

Are there any more comments you perceive as snarky or argumentative? I wouldn't mind discussing them to help clear the air.

If you are an example of somebody who disproves my characterization, then you could have simply stated so instead of inciting chaos and contributing to the derailment of yet another thread.

You could have said, "Hey Tenet, I am one who forwards a gradualist scenario, but it has nothing to do with resisting separation from my loved ones. Rather, it has to do with ___________."

I did state so specifically to you, which you did not reply to, so I figured you ignored it and I would leave it that. This was regarding Unity. Your name is only brought up because he chose to use your theory of bias as being why the discussion of gradualist vs. instant debate continued. And the posts I was referring to seeing were not the ones in which you were drawing from personal experience. I had already replied to the posts I was referring to, this particularly was an ill-conceived post to Unity, not you.

My reply is here: http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...6#pid52216

Maybe you didn't see it? I figured you ignored it.

But you didn't. Instead you chose to play the snarky card. Again. And not only did you play the snarky card, you played it in another thread, namely this one. Then you exited the thread stage left, ignoring two pages of comments, and then jumped back in fists flying.

And there's a lengthy thread explaining and apologizing for this to Unity, who the post was aimed towards.

I'll offer an apology to you as well Tenet, though I never aimed or meant for any comment towards you to be snarky or argumentative, it seems you have perceived such and I'd rather that not be the case.

[βαθμιαίος]

But perhaps it would be more constructive to discuss if you first shared the time frame and scenarios you have in mind...

As I've said before, I really don't know what to expect and wouldn't be surprised by either a sudden or a gradual harvest. Frankly, I'm not sure how much it matters. I'm going to continue trying to live in a balanced and radiant manner regardless of whether harvest is imminent or not for many years yet.

[Bring4th_Austin]

There are newly harvested entities among us now. They are in dual-activated bodies.

We are not talking about one or two entities strewn about the planet who have found the gateway to intelligent infinity by various means. We are talking about millions, or even hundreds of millions of people, coming "online" more or less simultaneously.

These are not entities which reached intelligent infinity on this plane, they are entities harvested from other spheres who have come here for 4D experience. During the contact, there were 35,000 of the, and it was a "recent phenomenon," so you can probably guess there are many, many more now. They are 4D entities incarnating into 3D/4D bodies. It is all spelled out in session 63

63.15 Questioner: Would the purpose in transitioning to Earth prior to the complete changeover then be for the experience to be gained here before the harvesting process?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. These entities are not Wanderers in the sense that this planetary sphere is their fourth-density home planet. However, the experience of this service is earned only by those harvested third-density entities which have demonstrated a great deal of orientation towards service-to-others. It is a privilege to be allowed this early an incarnation as there is much experiential catalyst in service to other-selves at this harvesting.

So, putting a newly harvested entity into an environment like this isn't cruel, it's a privilege. So if the condition were to last until all 3D entities died naturally, and the world was populated with more and more transitional bodies, it would be a great advantage for those newly harvested entities.

1. You overlooked, right there in the query, where Don says "prior to the complete changeover", and Ra did not correct him.

I'm not sure I see what your point is...it's not something I overlooked...right now is "prior to the complete changeover," and at that moment there were 35,000 4D entities living in dual bodies. That's the point I was making.

2. Then you overlooked that Ra says "at this harvesting", not during this harvesting process which goes on for multiple generations.

Also ***PINK ELEPHANT ALERT*** what is going on while all these 3D bodies are "dying naturally"? Are 3D entities going to be struck down with mass infertility? Are 4D children going to start popping out of 3D bodies? This needs to be explained in order to take the gradualist view seriously.

Ra very clearly describes that 4D bodies are born of gradual bisexual reproductive evolution. I've tried showing you this quote 3 or 4 times now

Here they are one more time.

63.27 Questioner: I will make this statement and have you correct me. What we have is, as our planet is spiraled by the spiraling action of the entire major galaxy and our planetary system spirals into the new position, the fourth-density vibrations becoming more and more pronounced. These atomic core vibrations begin to create, more and more completely, the fourth-density sphere and the fourth-density bodily complexes for inhabitation of that sphere. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is partially correct. To be corrected is the concept of the creation of green-ray density bodily complexes. This creation will be gradual and will take place beginning with your third-density type of physical vehicle and, through the means of bisexual reproduction, become by evolutionary processes, the fourth-density body complexes.

63.28 Questioner: Then are these entities of whom we have spoken, the third-density harvestable who have been transferred, the ones who then will, by bisexual reproduction, create the fourth-density complexes that are necessary?
Ra: I am Ra. The influxes of true color green energy complexes will more and more create the conditions in which the atomic structure of cells of bodily complexes is that of the density of love. The mind/body/spirit complexes inhabiting these physical vehicles will be, and to some extent, are, those of whom you spoke and, as harvest is completed, the harvested entities of this planetary influence.

Please acknowledge that you see these! They're very important.

[Tenet Nosce]

That would be true for this particular statement, but I was referring to posts such as the one stating "A gradualist view is very human-centric," continuing on explaining that gradualists are upset about the idea of death or "leaving someone behind."

You mean this:

A gradualist view is very human-centric. We think that the universe somehow cares that little Timmy will never get the chance to grow up and become a baseball star, or that Jane won't ever get to have her fairy-tale princess wedding, or that Gandalf the cat didn't quite make it to the next level. So because we can't imagine that there is more to life outside of our own little dramas, we would rather lie to ourselves and believe that the whole entire universe is going to wait for every last person to get their act together.

Well, yes this paragraph is meant to strike a chord. But notice I am including myself in this group, as evidenced by my use of the word "we".

Honestly, I still don't understand the point of it being gradual. What is the ontology here? What is the purpose? Assuming the Logos could have set things up either way, what goal or purpose is being served by an ongoing, multi-generational, transitional period as you later described?

I have to admit I am still having a really hard time seeing why one would favor a gradual scenario, if but for feeling negatively toward the shock factor which a more abrupt scenario implies. For example, I have not seen anybody say that they actually WISH it would all happen quickly, but unfortunately, based upon the evidence in the Ra material, they must conclude that harvest is actually gradual.

If somebody is out there who honestly believes that the preponderance of evidence is weighted toward the gradualist interpretation of harvest, but who would actually prefer it to be otherwise, please speak up!

I've accounted for the one snarky remark...have I made more I'm unaware of? I did just find this comment you got offended at, which is rather self-incriminating in a different sense for me:

A lot of people think they're interpretation is the only one which can be correct and they have (as we see) pages and pages of logical arguments to support their opinion, which like I said, I feel is derived from bias.

I won't ignore that I'm currently trying accuse others of doing something which I explicitly did here. I don't see a reason for myself, as in this situation, or anyone else to bring supposed bias into a logical argument. But, aside from that, I was rather perplexed by how offended you were at this statement, because it wasn't a jab at you or Unity or anyone else. We have ALL been discussing this for pages and pages, and ALL presenting logical arguments, and that's the point I was trying to make. The statement wasn't argumentative, but rather to point out that both camps, instant vs. gradual, have supplied many many logical arguments.

You said "a lot" of people who believe that their interpretation is the "only one" which is correct. Which, in fact, appears to represent nobody here in this forum. I am not offended so much, as finding myself in a position where I need to be defended from a false accusation. Moreover, I find myself in the even more awkward position of defending others against such accusations.

Perhaps you are not aware of the gravity of an accusation declaring another to believe their their view is the "only one and true way".

Are there any more comments you perceive as snarky or argumentative? I wouldn't mind discussing them to help clear the air.

There is no point in digging anything else up, as far as I can tell. But thanks for the offer.

I did state so specifically to you, which you did not reply to, so I figured you ignored it and I would leave it that. This was regarding Unity. Your name is only brought up because he chose to use your theory of bias as being why the discussion of gradualist vs. instant debate continued. And the posts I was referring to seeing were not the ones in which you were drawing from personal experience. I had already replied to the posts I was referring to, this particularly was an ill-conceived post to Unity, not you.

My reply is here: http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...6#pid52216

Maybe you didn't see it? I figured you ignored it.

I am still not finding where the direct reply is. I see that you offered a scenario, but then stated it not to be the scenario you have concluded it, in fact, to be. Which is...?

I'll offer an apology to you as well Tenet, though I never aimed or meant for any comment towards you to be snarky or argumentative, it seems you have perceived such and I'd rather that not be the case.

Apology accepted. And I apologize for miscontruing your words to have been directed at me.

---

These are not entities which reached intelligent infinity on this plane, they are entities harvested from other spheres who have come here for 4D experience. During the contact, there were 35,000 of the, and it was a "recent phenomenon," so you can probably guess there are many, many more now. They are 4D entities incarnating into 3D/4D bodies. It is all spelled out in session 63

So you are saying that these entities have already been harvested, and are now being born into 3D earth?

I'm not sure I see what your point is...it's not something I overlooked...right now is "prior to the complete changeover," and at that moment there were 35,000 4D entities living in dual bodies. That's the point I was making.

... and so after the "complete changeover" nobody will be able to discern that anything noticeable has completely changed? And if so, this plausible deniability of anything having been completely changed will be maintained for the benefit of... whom? I dunno maybe we are just talking past one another here.

Here they are one more time.

63.27 Questioner: I will make this statement and have you correct me. What we have is, as our planet is spiraled by the spiraling action of the entire major galaxy and our planetary system spirals into the new position, the fourth-density vibrations becoming more and more pronounced. These atomic core vibrations begin to create, more and more completely, the fourth-density sphere and the fourth-density bodily complexes for inhabitation of that sphere. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is partially correct. To be corrected is the concept of the creation of green-ray density bodily complexes. This creation will be gradual and will take place beginning with your third-density type of physical vehicle and, through the means of bisexual reproduction, become by evolutionary processes, the fourth-density body complexes.

63.28 Questioner: Then are these entities of whom we have spoken, the third-density harvestable who have been transferred, the ones who then will, by bisexual reproduction, create the fourth-density complexes that are necessary?

Ra: I am Ra. The influxes of true color green energy complexes will more and more create the conditions in which the atomic structure of cells of bodily complexes is that of the density of love. The mind/body/spirit complexes inhabiting these physical vehicles will be, and to some extent, are, those of whom you spoke and, as harvest is completed, the harvested entities of this planetary influence.

Please acknowledge that you see these! They're very important.

Yes, I see them!

According to my read, 63.27 is talking about the gradual transition from 3D to 4D bodies concomitant with the transition from 3D to 4D earth. And according to Ra, this transition was already complete in 1981. I acknowledge that use of the word "will" implies a process going on in the future which I am chalking up to being an artifact from an awkwardly worded query. We have to interpret this in light of the quote where Ra says, plain as day, that earth was already vibrating in the fourth density spectrum in 1981.

Ra: I am Ra. This sphere is at this time in fourth-dimension vibration

According to my read, 63.28 also supports everything I have been saying. The fourth-density physical complexes are already being inhabited, and will become, after harvest is completed, the harvested entities of this planetary influence. The harvest will be completed on or around 2011.

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.

... or will it be spread out? Don asks. Ra specifically does not say that, yes, it will be spread out. So if, in fact, it IS spread out, this constitutes a MASSIVELY HUGE blunder on the part of Ra. And in consideration of Ra's self-confessed shenanigans of the past, it seems preposterous to presume that Ra would have allowed such a grand error to have been passed along. Surely, Ra did not intend to cause greater confusion.

Those with hybrid 3D/4D bodies will find their 4D body decoupled from their 3D body. The 4D body, we are told, is electromagnetic in nature, in contrast to the 3D body, which is chemical. To those with no 4D body, it will appear that they have died. To those with the 4D body, it joins the rest of the 4D sphere, already in progress. Without the normal intercessionary life review, as unity100 has pointed out.

Keeping everybody together drops us right back into the shrinking population conundrum. Or alternatively, we are left contending with where the 7 - 10 billion harvested souls are coming from, and why. Both scenarios are absurd.

And besides, we are also informed that it is a late lesson of fourth density to learn how to stay invisible to third density. This is the whole reason that third density blinks out of activity. The 4D neophyte does not know how to control variable physicality. This is why 3D cannot persist long after harvest. It is all spelled out in the material.

So, in summary, yes there are certain quotes where the interpretation is up in the air. The wording is ambivalent. We are not exactly sure what Ra meant. But there are other quotes where no such ambivalence is present. Ra said what Ra said. It is plain as day for all to see.

Therefore, to interpret the material, or any portion thereof, such that the actual truth directly negates what Ra clearly and unambiguously said is, in effect, negating the whole thing. Such an interpretation undermines the credibility of the entire transmission, and if such is the case, we might as well assume that the whole thing is pure nonsense.

[βαθμιαίος]

You are looking at it from the point of view of the harvester, not the harvested. For each individual fruit, there is a discrete transition between "not-harvested" and "harvested".

I guess the question is whether earth is a fruit or a garden.

---

7 - 10 billion harvested souls

Where did this number come from?

[unity100]

Unity - You're not being honest with yourself brother, and you're not fooling anyone. You've been studying this material for 15 years I believe you once said. You've been over these quotes dozens of times, and I've seen you argue this topic endlessly since I've joined this site. There is always room for learning and change, yes.

- at no point i said i was infallible
- having dwelt on a material for 15 years does not mean you gave equal weight to everything

the rest, is unintelligible to me. 'honest with myself' what ? 'fooling anyone' who ? what do these even mean. learning and change ? what's that ? change we can believe in ?

The Unity of today does not agree with the Unity of a week ago because you can't make a definitive statement. None of us can. We don't know the answer. You won't admit it, and that's fine. Embrace misunderstanding and be open to the possibility that others may be correct. In other words, you may be wrong.

unity of last week didnt dwell on this matter of harvest this long. when discovered the important pointers he himself brought here, his perspective CHANGED properly, in the light of the information he received, and became unity of today.

he didnt try to find ways around the information he discovered, or tried to ignore it because of his biases.

Going back to a way earlier discussion we had, I was trying to point out the words which Ra says which would leave it readily open for interpretation by anyone. The "probability" and "approximately" are open for interpretation to someone who would wish to still believe in harvest if nothing happened in the near future. "It was just a probability, as well as an approximation." That isn't something that could be argued with, and would simply have to be dismissed on one's own logic. I wasn't trying to say that harvest could last that long, or that the process was that long, simply that it could be argued by someone that 2011, 2012, or anytime in the near future, isn't necessarily the date for harvest.

there is a certain limit which words 'approximately' and 'probability' can accommodate in regard to possibilities. a probability defined as having a time period in between 100 and 700 years, is different from the probability window of something that is told to happen at a certain date, and not be a period that goes over that date.

if applied into this subject - one can argue harvest may not happen in 2011, or in an alternate reality it happened in 2010. or, may say it may happen in 2013.

but, one may not extend the probability window SO much that it suddenly transforms into becoming 900 years a period. the reasons, if i need to reiterate again - i am sure someone just selectively miss perceiving these if i dont - :

- harvest was told NOT to be something that spans a period
- harvest was told to happen IN 2011
- merging these, one can only conclude that harvest would be something that would encompass at most a year, even if it was a period.
- one can at most conclude that harvest would be something that would last at most around a years' vicinity
- one can at most conclude that harvest may happen in 2011, 2010, 2009, 2012, 2013 or similar.
- it is not possible to slap a 900 year period

Besides the probabilities and approximations, what I am calling ambiguous is the actual mechanic of harvest, as none of us know what it is or how it will happen. We know that a gateway to intelligent infinity is opened. The ambiguous part I see is the fact that it could easily be that it is opened for those entities in time/space, and then all those passing into time/space after that time period will have access to it as well. I'm not denying the possibility that it may happen for those in space/time, but that is not the only possible scenario I see.

that is incorrect. harvest mechanisms were clearly defined in numerous subjects. these range from earth changes, to moving into 4d, to what happens after death, archetypal talk regarding logoic archetypes etc. mechanism of harvest was also explained for pre-veil, and compared with mechanism of post-veil.

Ra says here "these entities are not a social memory complex," whereas Ra never says "entities within incarnation will be aware of the opening of the gateway, entities within incarnation will be aware of the harvesting, entities within incarnation will immediately be harvested." I (now) realize you've changed your viewpoint somewhat, but I'm still seeing both possibilities, where "harvest," starting instantly and lasting until the last person unharvested person in incarnation at that point dies naturally, only being harvested after death...or harvested instantly from space/time, or somewhere in between.

the above quote makes your issue with not the date of harvest, but the mechanism of harvest and whether it includes death, or not.

i have already included the quotes which made me change my opinion about not having to die in the earlier pages. i wont reiterate these. as long as those quotes stand, what they collectively mean, is going to stay the same. it seems to be necessary for an entity to die and placed in another dimension for the word 'harvest' to be filled in the meaning it is used in those. even for 150 entities that were harvestable in 2nd cycle, the word 'harvestable' is used instead of 'harvested entities'.

But if the person replies "it's probable/possible that the red crate is fresher," is that not an ambiguous answer? It means that they might be, or they might not be. I was never contending that harvest could LAST for so many years...from the material, what I gather, the possibility I'm seeing is that harvest would last until the last person who was alive during harvest dies naturally...could be 50-100 years generously. My main contention about being open for interpretation was "approximately" and "probability/possibility." It's pretty safe to assume harvest is nigh, as I'm sure most here have done, but like I said, if nothing noticeable happens in the next few years, and someone wants to believe it still could, could point at those words and say "see, it's still possible."

the person did not reply saying 'it is possible that red crate is a fresher'. however the example is apparently open to misperception. i will correct it with the below example i gave later for icaro :

your friend comes to your house. you ask him whether he wants soda or tea. he responds, 'tea'. you give him soda, and tell him that you interpreted him to mean soda.

if, there was a probability of harvest taking 50 years, that would make harvest an event that is spread over a period, and ra would TELL it. don asked whether it was spread over a period or at a certain date, and the answer was a certain date. i am appalled that we are still discussing this.

I've explicitly seen Tenet address the whole of the "gradualist standpoint" as being caught on some sort of bias, and this is what I was thinking you were agreeing with.

i am agreeing with it. it is explicitly told in the material that harvest is not an event that is spread over a period of time. the transition into a 4d plane/society was told to take from 100 to 700 years with the current probabilities then.

there is indeed a lot of bias surrounding this issue.

as for 'psychoanalysis qualification' or any other concern regarding observing bias, the below sequence i experienced with icaro is sufficient for me - i will just include part of my reply to icaro :

- started off with holding harvest and 'transition/move' into 4d as one and same
- when it was shown that they were not, you switched to arguing harvest had possibly started in 1937 with the move into 4d vibrations
- when it was shown that there were entities waiting for harvest despite being disincarnate, this time you outright went and slapped a 900 year harvest duration out of nowhere

and as of this moment you are still dwelling on it, despite a clear, purpose-specific question asked for querying exactly the same thing, and answer being contrary to what you hold in view as of now. you are just ignoring it and this time :

- going the way of claiming 'intuition' in 'reinterpretation' of a clearly worded, specifically asked question and its plain, blunt, direct answer

at the end of this sequence, i dont see anything possible other than concluding a bias is affecting judgment of the other participant.

Like I said, I don't know if I completely understand your new perspective. I tried reading the thread over a couple times...what do you consider "short harvest?" I don't think there's any Ra material to support a harvest that is longer than the remaining lifespan of entities incarnated during harvest, only material which could support that harvest wouldn't start for a number of years, thus not being over for an even longer number of years.

Is the "short harvest" you talk about basically what I am saying? Only long enough for the entities to die of natural causes?

you can go back 2-3 pages and read what i found and what i concluded with my findings. i will just summarize here - if you need pointers and reasoning, you should just roll the pages back :

- as per the major important quote of Ra responding with a certain date to a question that asks whether it was to happen at a certain date or be spread over time, it is definite that harvest is not an event that goes over a years' duration with our year concept. so, harvest should take 365 years the most. even if possibilities introduced into this, the duration cannot be longer than a year and a half with good probability - if, it was likely to be a period that long, ra would tell that it would take in between X years and Y years. they did not - they told it was to happen at a certain year. there are no exceptions - ra gives the period interval when they talk about periods. this basically says harvest will happen in a duration shorter than a year. it also means it is near, very likely in 2011.

- first i had the notion of dying not be a necessity for harvest. however as per the quotes i shared, basing on the wordage used for those who were harvestable and who were harvested, their incarnational status (some deceased, some living, some 2nd cycle harvestables), it seems that dying is a necessity for completion of harvest, EVEN if opening the gateway to intelligent infinity during incarnation is told to be a ticket to next octave of experience. (even surpassing harvest process itself) but, the wordage used for, and the situation of the harvestable and harvested entities, basically tell us that the word 'harvested' requires replacement in a 4d continuum, here or elsewhere - this requires death. previously, i didnt think i was necessary to die for getting harvested. now, i see that the status 'harvestable' and 'harvested' are not used interchangeably. in this light, the phrase 'all are harvested regardless of progress' becomes rather prophetic.

like what is told below :

As I said earlier, I can see the process extending for months, not much past a year. Certainly not extending past generations.

That would be true for this particular statement, but I was referring to posts such as the one stating "A gradualist view is very human-centric," continuing on explaining that gradualists are upset about the idea of death or "leaving someone behind."

it actually is. gradualist view is SO comfortable that, there would not be a rush to increase harvest numbers with that perspective. people would have at least 70 years from the start of the harvest to live, and there would be 100 years to work on increasing the harvest, and 70 of these years would be under the comfortable (!) unhindered instreamings of 4d vibrations. which would bolster any kind of spiritual work or awareness. moreover, the gradualist view also accommodates a great situation in which the existing dynamics and mechanics of life as established are not disturbed in an uncomfortable fashion at all - at most, they 'change' rapidly due to 'fast awakening' of people en masse.

and ALL presenting logical arguments, and that's the point I was trying to make. The statement wasn't argumentative, but rather to point out that both camps, instant vs. gradual, have supplied many many logical arguments.

all was not presenting logical arguments. there was no logic in what some people said. eventually they came to say that they believed that things would happen in certain way x, due to their intuition. there isnt a logic in this.

and maybe surprisingly, i wasnt also bringing logical arguments. what i concluded, solely rests on what Ra has said, as included in the quotes. if you ask me regarding the logic of these, i may tell you i find some logical, some illogical, some this way, some that way - but these doesnt change what Ra has explicitly, clearly shared as information. therefore what i have shared are not based on logic - they are based on plain english language direct answers Ra gave to plain direct questions - in the matter of duration and date of harvest - , and their choice of words and situations of those who were harvested and harvestable in the case of dying being a necessity for the term 'harvested' being fulfilled.

Ra very clearly describes that 4D bodies are born of gradual bisexual reproductive evolution. I've tried showing you this quote 3 or 4 times now Sad

the problem with mystery surrounding 4d bodies being gradually born out of normal evolution is, the 4d and 3d being defined as different planes/dimensions. this implies that due to 3-4d bodies being present both in 3d and 4d, they are also undertaking actions in 4d without even knowing. it is possible that their manifestation in 4d, is doing this reproduction in 4d, and creating 4d bodies.

what leads me to this possibility is the fact that the dimensions 4d and 3d are quite different. there would be a certain point where a body shows more of the 4d features than 3d features, and what would happen at that point in time regarding visibility of 4d, or this and that paranormal phenomenon that is radically different from 3d ? you have a daughter - now you see her, now you dont, is it ?

however this is an interpretation. 3d-4d entities can stay as much as they want to on this planet and continue reproducing - this is their home planet, their bodies can withstand 4d energies and they dont need to be harvested. others, however, need to be harvested.

..............

other important points :

- like tenet mentioned, you cant just 'depopulate' 7 billion entities like that. 700 years of transition requires a population decline rate of 60 million.
- 3d bodies cant withstand 4d. planet will fully align to 4d vibrations soon. this will make 4d a habitable solid sphere. what will happen to 3d entities for the duration of that 700 years of transition if they live here ? dropping like flies due to illnesses and fast death introduced due to randomly interacting with 4d ?