The Man Who Sold the World

[Ashim]

If I remember correctly Ra was very hesitant when discussing numbers of incarnate wanderers and their densities.
It seems the information witheld by Ra is the puzzle that we have to solve whilst here under catalyst.
I believe there is a large metaphysical object approaching us and this with ever increasing velocity.

If I have understood the words of Ra and more importantly the words they did not wish to convey as a form of vocal speach then I would offer this hypothesis, as always as a personal interpretation of some of the implications of the Material we have been given to study . The answers to Questioners very astute questions do however exist as thought forms. Ra initially cognated the answer but due to the Law of Confusion was given the cosmic 'slap in the face' by the higher densitiy Guardians.
This is in effect what happens with all communication.

To get to the point of the title of this thread; must there not by definition be one single entity who owns the world, or reality as we know it?
This person is the man who sold the world.
He invented real estate.
What did he do and how did he do it?
He created 3d space.

How?
The principle of the Riad.

I might be leaning out of the window a little here but I will go one step on and say that I believe that I know this man.
His name is known and has been mentioned before so it's no secret really.

I would be interested to get your feedback on my thoughts.
I am very grateful to be able to communicate with you all here.
Thanks.

[Oldern]

I am always hesistant to see one person getting named as a doing of one or another thing.
Why? Because the overall society state is responsible for any bad deed as well.

The most latest example on this is Hitler. Yes, we all know what he did. But what is more frightening is that there was NEVER a point in his life when one of his comrades who saw what was going on would just go ahead and stop him. Never. And let us not start talking about the ease the crowds are convinced into believing anything...

I do not know who you are talking about, but that must be because I am not skilled in History

[Ashim]

I am always hesistant to see one person getting named as a doing of one or another thing.

Then you would have felt very uncomfortable sitting in the House of Lords when Lord James made his presentation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL5hqvTWk...e=youtu.be

Why? Because the overall society state is responsible for any bad deed as well

Wrong. Each entity takes responsibility for itself according to the Law of Responsibility. States are only responsible in hive societies.

The most latest example on this is Hitler. Yes, we all know what he did. But what is more frightening is that there was NEVER a point in his life when one of his comrades who saw what was going on would just go ahead and stop him. Never. And let us not start talking about the ease the crowds are convinced into believing anything...

You can fool some of the people, some of the time, but never all of the people, all of the time. I do not remember who the quote is from but I do recall vividly the moment my father shared this truth with me.

I do not know who you are talking about, but that must be because I am not skilled in History

Would you like a history lesson?

[Oldern]

Hehe, I like reading about everything, so a quick Wikipedia or other link would help me out if there is any specific info that I need to get : D

[Ali Quadir]

Of course there is not a single entity who owns the world. The whole principle of being co-creators means we all own it. The fact that you can create in it makes you a part owner.

Take the example of Hitler.. There is no doubt he was an important aspect in the second world war. And the man certainly had a lot of character flaws. But to claim that he's the pivotal cause for the second world war is naive. The man existed in a culture and context that was extremely racist and prejudiced, and extremely angry after the way the germans had been treated since the first world war.

And it was not just the German people. Don't get me wrong. The whole western world was involved. Before the wars started Hitler had many who openly sympathized. It was the time of social darwinism, of eugenics, of racial purity.

If you had a time machine and could go back and kill Hitler. No, better: convince the judge from art school, who rejected him, to accept him instead. Then even with him out of the picture there would probably still have been a war and a holocaust. Perhaps in a slightly different form, perhaps not as bad, perhaps worse.

It would be so simple, remove one man and the world will be instant paradise. But this is just a fantasy. The reality is that the one man in a pivotal position is always the expression of the minds of millions.

Imagine that Hitler did not fit his time. If the people had disagreed with him instinctively. He certainly could not have created the second world war.

The illuminati and powers that were, were only able to gain their power because the rest of humanity gave them that power. We are co creators, if they had refused the ability to wield such corrupting power then someone else would have accepted it.

If people would have rejected the systems they devised they simply would not have had the influence they have today.

[Ashim]

Of course there is not a single entity who owns the world.

You state this as a fact. Prove it please.

The whole principle of being co-creators means we all own it.

No. The man who sold the world was the one who created ownership. Look at what you call your possessions. Are they yours? We indeed all co-create but within reality.

The fact that you can create in it makes you a part owner.

I disagree. You can co-create within reality but may not be a planetary logos. The planetary logos 'owns' the planet.
You must own your resposibility nothing more and nothing less.

As for Hitler and the Illuminati - what have they got to do with this thread? I already left their vibrations a while ago.
Did you watch the video?

---

Hehe, I like reading about everything, so a quick Wikipedia or other link would help me out if there is any specific info that I need to get : D

What do you need to get exactly?

[Oldern]

The video link does not work, btw -.-

[Ashim]

The video link does not work, By the way -.-

Sorry my mistake.
Wander already posted this on another thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL5hqvTWk...e=youtu.be

[Ali Quadir]

Of course there is not a single entity who owns the world.

You state this as a fact. Prove it please.

It is incompatible with the idea of co-creators.

If we assume this hypothetical man to exist or have existed. And he has invented the idea of property. And thus by proposition of logic (which I will assume for the sake of this argument to be correct) sold the world. Then his idea of property could only have become universal if it was adopted by all other co-creators.

Then all co-creators who subscribe to the idea of property must have also sold the world. So there is no single entity.

The whole principle of being co-creators means we all own it.

No. The man who sold the world was the one who created ownership. Look at what you call your possessions. Are they yours? We indeed all co-create but within reality.

I call my posessions illusory, it is a social agreement with my environment that they are mine. But when I die they won't come with me. Neither do they cease to exist.

Simply inventing a concept called ownership changes nothing about the world, only our behavior in it.

The fact that you can create in it makes you a part owner.

I disagree. You can co-create within reality but may not be a planetary logos. The planetary logos 'owns' the planet.
You must own your resposibility nothing more and nothing less.

We are part of the planetary logos. So we must partly 'own' the planet. We are metaphysically inseparable from this planet. Our creations have immediate causative effects on the rest of the planet. And metaphysical effects on subtler realms. All is one. So we must logically be all.

Our responsibility extends beyond our property our lives and even beyond this planet. Indeed if all is one, and thus we are each personally all that is. Then each of us personally has a responsibility to all that is..

This does not imply the usual blame that responsibility carries with it. It simply means that everything has a relation and connection towards us.

As for Hitler and the Illuminati - what have they got to do with this thread? I already left their vibrations a while ago.

Oldern mentioned him. And I think it is a great example so I used it to explain my point.

Similar to how Hitler could not commit his crimes if the co-creators of his time would not have sufficiently agreed with him. Similarly your theoretical man who sold the world could not have sold the world on his own. If he could not have done this on his own, then he never owned the world in the first place, neither has he actually sold it.

Did you watch the video?

You gave an invalid link, I already know about lord james of blackheath's complaint. I do fail to see the relevance.


Also, for your consideration. Property and real estate, the principles, existed long before mankind ever inhabited the planet. Nests and other animal 'tools' or food made or collected by animals are often protected or hoarded. Certain animals even consider other animals their property. (Another male should not approach my females or invade my territory, my children are not allowed to wander off.) The human idea of property is an extention of biological behavior. If anything we only made it more complicated and ritualized, but we did not create it.

[Aureus]

I am curious about how this entity you speak of ties to the number of wanderers incarnated. Did we ourselves create posession only to come back to eradicate that illusion? The logos created the possibility of ownership and disownership. Now you speak of an entity that caused a likelihood of the first to occur. Im no good at history.

[Siren]

The most latest example on this is Hitler.

Really? You might be forgetting more modern icons.

Yes, we all know what he did.

Do we?

I gotta say I sympathize for Adolf.

[Patrick]

Of course there is not a single entity who owns the world.

You state this as a fact. Prove it please.

Oh my! Proof? Each of us creates our own Truths. So there is no need for proof.

[Ashim]

Oh my! Proof? Each of us creates our own Truths. So there is no need for proof.

I am simply presenting a hypothosis in this thread.
This is not a five minute argument.
Logically I must attempt to provide proof of a theory if it is to be accepted by others.
This is all I am attempting to do. As I see it I am, by your questioning striving to deliver as congruent an argument as possible.
I can not remember the song title....wait..to paraphrase Björk "..unravels like all ball of yarn".

I was going to post a link to either the bowie (original) or the Nirvana version but thought this one to be much more appropriate. Nudge nudge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmT4ZwZZJBU

It is incompatible with the idea of co-creators.

Ok Ali. I tend to disagree with most of your views and to be honest it's ok for me to leave it at that.

[Patrick]

Oh my! Proof? Each of us creates our own Truths. So there is no need for proof.

I am simply presenting a hypothosis in this thread.
This is not a five minute argument.
Logically I must attempt to provide proof of a theory if it is to be accepted by others.
This is all I am attempting to do. As I see it I am, by your questioning striving to deliver as congruent an argument as possible...

Ok yes. Presenting evidence in support of an hypothesis is helpful. But proof is something else. Even in science there is no such thing as proof, with the exception maybe of mathematics. So you can surely understand my reaction when it comes to proof and spirituality.

[Ashim]

Oh my! Proof? Each of us creates our own Truths. So there is no need for proof.

I am simply presenting a hypothosis in this thread.
This is not a five minute argument.
Logically I must attempt to provide proof of a theory if it is to be accepted by others.
This is all I am attempting to do. As I see it I am, by your questioning striving to deliver as congruent an argument as possible...

Ok yes. Presenting evidence in support of an hypothesis is helpful. But proof is something else. Even in science there is no such thing as proof, with the exception maybe of mathematics. So you can surely understand my reaction when it comes to proof and spirituality.

Like I have implied in other posts everything is personal.
These are my own views if you subscribe to them or not that is your choice.
You are the only judge of self, not the man who sold the world or any other entity. I try to remember that.
I am actually a more skilled linguist rather than a numbers person.
I know this is a weakness but I do try to explain in simple terms the science behind several phenomena, always of course in my opinion and to the best of my understanding.

[Ali Quadir]

It is incompatible with the idea of co-creators.

Ok Ali. I tend to disagree with most of your views and to be honest it's ok for me to leave it at that.

It is okay... We don't need to agree. You asked me for proof I gave you an appropriate response. If you wish to leave it at that then that's okay for me. You probably saved us both a lot of time right?

[Unbound]

Is "Riad" supposed to be "Triad"?

I understand what you are getting at, that there must have been a sort of "beginning" to the chain reaction which produced the state of our current society, and that following as you say of Ra, there must be an entity involved.

However, herein I would perhaps define entity not by an individuated soul fragment, but as a collective entity consisting of multiple individuated portions. Remember, Ra doesn't see us as separate.

[Ashim]

Is "Riad" supposed to be "Triad"?

I understand what you are getting at, that there must have been a sort of "beginning" to the chain reaction which produced the state of our current society, and that following as you say of Ra, there must be an entity involved.

However, herein I would perhaps define entity not by an individuated soul fragment, but as a collective entity consisting of multiple individuated portions. Remember, Ra doesn't see us as separate.

No riad.
You are correct that the entity has omniprecence within the social memory complex but it (he) is also one individual entity, by definition. As you reminded us from Ra, we are all things.

---

It is incompatible with the idea of co-creators.

Ok Ali. I tend to disagree with most of your views and to be honest it's ok for me to leave it at that.

It is okay... We don't need to agree. You asked me for proof I gave you an appropriate response. If you wish to leave it at that then that's okay for me. You probably saved us both a lot of time right?

Nice that you are back here Ali.

[Oldern]

That man is then either Yahweh or Lucifer.

[Unbound]

What is Riad? I've never heard this word.

[hogey11]

My question to Ashim is what do you know about Yohannes Riyadi?

I have looked but have not found much - other than what the Federal Reserve wants me to know.

Logic brings me back in time - maybe to a time where Riyadi was instead Riad.

At some point, someone somewhere was given the choice to abandon the position of stewardship for the luxury of ownership and they took it. Could this be 'Riad'?

[Ashim]

My question to Ashim is what do you know about Yohannes Riyadi?

For starters he wears a black suit, has dark eyes and has a very very nice office.

[Parsons]

I saw the title of this thread and immediately told myself "MUST POST NIRVANA COVER OF DAVID BOWIE SONG", but someone beat me to it.

As for the thread, I have been once again puzzled by the arguments claiming these two concepts are mutually exclusive, when they are not. Someone can claim they can do things like buy or sell a world such as this, and even convince some people or even a large population of such a lie, but simply knowing One is a free soul and do whatever they will makes it untrue for that specific person. Some may choose to go along with that lie and that is their choice, for is this not the density of choice between polarities?

So, to some, someone may have said they sold the world. In my own case, I choose to be free and don't care if someone convinced others and possibly themselves that they sold the whole world (and presumably it's inhabitants as slaves). This position of indifference allows me to be passively curious: who is this person you claim to have sold the world?

[Ashim]

I saw the title of this thread and immediately told myself "MUST POST NIRVANA COVER OF DAVID BOWIE SONG", but someone beat me to it.

Lulu had the biggest hit with the song although the others versions may be musically better.

As for the thread, I have been once again puzzled by the arguments claiming these two concepts are mutually exclusive, when they are not. Someone can claim they can do things like buy or sell a world such as this, and even convince some people or even a large population of such a lie, but simply knowing One is a free soul and do whatever they will makes it untrue for that specific person. Some may choose to go along with that lie and that is their choice, for is this not the density of choice between polarities?

So, to some, someone may have said they sold the world. In my own case, I choose to be free and don't care if someone convinced others and possibly themselves that they sold the whole world (and presumably it's inhabitants as slaves). This position of indifference allows me to be passively curious: who is this person you claim to have sold the world?

You have to sell your soul to him. That is the point you have discovered. Not all of us did this. I most certainly did not.
If you are still playing the power and money game then maybe you did give him your free will, at least in part.
Those completely under his omnipresence are termed Els or Satanels.
If I get the drift of your post then no, were are not all 'owned' - unless of course you are still unaware that you sold yourself.
But even these beings are offered grace for in the higher densities or heavens there is only freedom and joy no need for repression or scenarios of 'good' and 'bad'.
These are just manifestations of 3rd density, as Ra told us - Illussions.
All beings know this intuitively at a deep soul level.
You know his name too.

[Unbound]

Yohanna Riyadi, is he of the Dragon Family?

[Lulu]

...But what is more frightening is that there was NEVER a point in his life when one of his comrades who saw what was going on would just go ahead and stop him. Never. And let us not start talking about the ease the crowds are convinced into believing anything...

Until people actually truly understand HOW energy works and how they are receiving what is projected at them, they will always be like puppets able to be manipulated to those with the cleverest strings.

One should Learn by practicing with your own energy, using extremes so the differences are obvious. Walk into a store and project from your aura, from yourself, a very all-knowing, kingly dominating vibration. Notice how the store clerks will perform or fumble, take note of the types of persons that acknowledge you, that would not otherwise notice you. Who steps out of your way? Note how YOU feel when you receive the energy they now project back to you. Do you feel powerful, in-charge, invincible and do you see them as mere simpletons now feeling it only a "duty" to be kindly. It's a fascinating study! I highly recommend it if you wish to know how NOT to be manipulated yourself.

There are many ways of manipulating energy. One can project an energy that would cause others to have FEAR just by being near them. People don't want to study this because they don't want to BE manipulators of energy, or are afraid that it is true. However, all should study this so they will no longer be manipulatable.

There is much information even on these forums as to how easily we can be manipulated. How YOU respond is indicative of where or how YOU are yet manipulatable and/or what the energy of the one you are responding to is. Are you a placater? Are you an arguer seeking limp power but only where it is "safe" looking for kudos. Are you needing to be heard and so you feel frustrated if no one responds; well then, if someone "hears you" you are now "manipulatable" in this way and can be used to whatever degree that soothes you. Do you need to project that you are intelligent so that others will respond to you as Intelligent, afraid of any other shadows of less then that.

It's possible one could study this forum every day to learn better HOW to manipulate or be a professional sociopath. Meanwhile we cough it all up for those who wish to "rule others or rule the world", most often not studying our OWN responses in regards to this. I find it particularly fascinating that one Negative STS profiler, who has NO interest in others, asks nothing of others and comments on no other threads or posts, and ONLY ever speaks of himself, gets SO much attention and questions! Doesn't that in itself indicate something? Those who come along with "helpful counselor/teacher" attitudes are generally not well noticed it's like NPR for forums, it just doesn't move the massses. There IS information in that. The teachers/counselors or NPR folks certainly won't be taking over the world anytime soon, they are also not interested in manipulation.

Those Projecting a stance of POWER get powerful using those who are not IN their own full power. No one thinks they would "be" that weak person that "went along with things" opps, I killed others. NO one thinks they are the corruptible ones. But it should be known WHY people are this. Those who Manipulate know HOW to corrupt by playing on your own internal shadows/fears and weaknesses that have not yet been dealt with.

Most of us want to stay securely in "denial" at the powers of play behind the scenes. Though it seems a more "loving" choice, this is NOT Love. True LOVE is not afraid, is not scared of it's own shadows because it accepts all in itself and therefore is willing and can SEE everything.

One can empower oneself MORE by understanding HOW energy works by practicing in their own shadows. I highly recommend it.

Lulu

[Sagittarius]

So this entity sells us experiences on this earth so to speak. Basically us wanderers bought into it to increase our ascent due to the harsh nature of catalysts here. I have been feeling this way for some time. We do it in service, I have had some powerful moments of realization of the service that I'am performing.

[Lulu]

[/quote]


I was going to post a link to either the bowie (original) or the Nirvana version but thought this one to be much more appropriate. Nudge nudge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmT4ZwZZJBU



[/quote]

ick that music makes me want to change my name...:@
(where is the I'm puking smilie?)

Lulu

---

You have to sell your soul to him. That is the point you have discovered. Not all of us did this. I most certainly did not.
If you are still playing the power and money game then maybe you did give him your free will, at least in part.
Those completely under his omnipresence are termed Els or Satanels.
If I get the drift of your post then no, were are not all 'owned' - unless of course you are still unaware that you sold yourself.
But even these beings are offered grace for in the higher densities or heavens there is only freedom and joy no need for repression or scenarios of 'good' and 'bad'.
These are just manifestations of 3rd density, as Ra told us - Illussions.
All beings know this intuitively at a deep soul level.
You know his name too.

[/quote]

Ashim, Have you had personal experiences regarding this topic or are you discussing it based on information that you have discovered read or heard about otherwise?
Lulu

[Ashim]

Lulu, sorry about the music.
What I am sharing is, as always, based on personal experience.


.

[Ashim]

Here is the quote that inspired this thread.

69.12 Questioner: Is it possible to tell me roughly how many Wanderers who have come to this planet during this master cycle have experienced this displacement into a negative time/space?

Ra: I am Ra. We can note the number of such occurrences. There has been only one. We cannot, due to the Law of Confusion, discuss the entity.