Ra's understanding of Person.

[Shin'Ar]

RA- 51.10
Free will has potentiated, both, the Creator of us all , and our selves, as co-Creator, with intelligent infinity, which has will. This ‘will’, may be drawn upon by the indigo or form-making body , and its wisdom used to then choose the appropriate locus and type of experience which this co-Creator or sub-sub-Logos, you call so carelessly ‘a person’ will take.”

What do you suppose that Ra meant by saying, "...call so carelessly 'a person'..?"

[GentleReckoning]

more correctly called a m/b/s?

[spero]

the quote seems straightforward enough...a person is a co-creator or a sub-sub-Logos

[Shin'Ar]

I am speaking of the clear definition of the use of the term being careless.

Why would Ra state that it is careless for us to think of ourselves as 'persons'?

[anagogy]

I am speaking of the clear definition of the use of the term being careless.

Why would Ra state that it is careless for us to think of ourselves as 'persons'?

For what its worth, I think it is, more or less, for the reasons Spero stated above. We are more than *just* a person. We are sub-sub-logoi. Creators. Integral parts of the One.

It is "careless" because the word "person" doesn't completely capture the gravity of what we are.

[βαθμιαίος]

The etymology of "person" states, in part, "from L. persona 'human being, person, personage; a part in a drama, assumed character,' originally 'mask, false face,' such as those of wood or clay worn by the actors in later Roman theater."

Perhaps the connotation of falseness can be considered careless.

[Ashim]

The etymology of "person" states, in part, "from L. persona 'human being, person, personage; a part in a drama, assumed character,' originally 'mask, false face,' such as those of wood or clay worn by the actors in later Roman theater."

Perhaps the connation of falseness can be considered careless.

The word 'person' is an intergalactic insult.

[Horuseus]

Why would Ra state that it is careless for us to think of ourselves as 'persons'?

Likely because the majority erroneously associate/identify themselves solely with the Ego.

[Oldern]

The careless part comes from vastly underestimating one's own power over its experiences, in almost any front.
It also implies things that are untrue. We are not shells ready to be shed, we are the current represenatation of what our consciousness wants to experience RIGHT NOW.

[almostdone]

Why would Ra state that it is careless for us to think of ourselves as 'persons'?

Likely because the majority erroneously associate/identify themselves solely with the Ego.

I agree. To a 6th density being, person (person-al) would indicate separation not unity.

[Shin'Ar]

The careless part comes from vastly underestimating one's own power over its experiences, in almost any front.
It also implies things that are untrue. We are not shells ready to be shed, we are the current represenatation of what our consciousness wants to experience RIGHT NOW.

'We' are not the physical bodies which we wear. We are not those shells. They are the vehicle of the fragmented field of consciousness.

But just because we know that they will be shed at some point, this does not mean that they bare not of great value while we have them. There is much to appreciate.

Like a fine car.

But NOT 'we'.

'We' experience creation in many forms like this and many very different from it. Compared to countless forms in which 'we' will experience creation, the human one will be a speck in time.

It is only when you attach your self to the flesh, this temporary form, that you feel empathy for the well being of your body, thinking it to be what you are.

You think that you are the shell, and so in your mind, the shell becomes a matter of both whether you continue to exist or not, as well as what you will continue as, after death.

I do not think like this. It is not my understanding.

The conscious awareness that you sense as 'you', is not your head, or your face, or any single part of your body. It exists within the body, but not attached to the physical as material. It exists within the very energy that flows through your entire system, making it a thing filled with life. This 'energy' is the conduit by which we are linked to The One from which it spawns. And it is found within the form of every creation.

It is in your brain. And it is in your foot. It is in your blood and it is in the depths of your atomic structure. And yet it is not bound to any of those parts, except as a utilizer. This is how a field of consciousness interacts with other fields. They can connect without being consumed by the other. Their fragmented individuality and independence from the body remains intact even though it is fully assimilated into the physical body in every essence of it.


This energy is what 'you' are. A fire.

And when this body falls victim to the Thermodynamic laws of nature, that 'fire' which you actually are, will move on to the places and further experiences it is called to move into.

We should never be ready to shed, if we are managing to establish some sort of effective and productive life in this shell. This is an opportunity, of which advantage should be taken.

But we also should never become attached to the body in such a way that we believe it to be what we think is our 'self'.

One should also follow the same advice with regard to their BMW.

[Turtle]

It is "careless" because the word "person" doesn't completely capture the gravity of what we are.

This.

[Shin'Ar]

Why would Ra state that it is careless for us to think of ourselves as 'persons'?

Likely because the majority erroneously associate/identify themselves solely with the Ego.

I agree. To a 6th density being, person (person-al) would indicate separation not unity.

Some get it, most don't. It is extremely difficult to let go of the delusional self. And extremely careless of us to associate ourselves so completely with it that we actually call it a person.

I do not name my car or call it a person.

I am in agreement with Ra on this.

[Oldern]

I like your interpretation of this, Shin'Ar, but I would once again provide you some food for thought regards to "not being attached.".

When one says not being attached, lusts, dangers of flesh, etc (the group what I call "usual suspects", for a reason that usually, with the inexperienced adept, they only bring fear, self-loathing, self-hate and the sense of original sin, but nothing else, and certainly not something positive), I always remember that the "other side" of this equation is when we approach this from the OTHER angle.

The other angle being the zen buddhist, or simply the way of Buddha. Where, after strong self-reflection in meditation, one could determine that each and every single problem, pain and issue in life comes from attachment to this world, to this body, to one's parents, to one's habits, to one's joy (to one's sexuality, to one's power, and so on and so on). Then, after deciding that it is NOT the experience that we want to have, one could simply let these attachments fall off, and a natural mini-evolution will take place. One not centered around the physical experience and the emotions related to this experience.

If your angle is the same than this, then I might have greatly misunderstood you. But I do perceive a great difference. The zen buddhist does not rush it. Does not say "beware of the dangers". But when a young student complains about its tasks, its body pains or discomforts, he smiles. He might have the same pains for decades, but it is okay. Because the "master" understands that really, when the time comes for the student, then he, without outside poking, advices and lectures, will naturally start walking on the way of less attachments, less physical experience.

[Shin'Ar]

I like your interpretation of this, Shin'Ar, but I would once again provide you some food for thought regards to "not being attached.".

When one says not being attached, lusts, dangers of flesh, etc (the group what I call "usual suspects", for a reason that usually, with the inexperienced adept, they only bring fear, self-loathing, self-hate and the sense of original sin, but nothing else, and certainly not something positive), I always remember that the "other side" of this equation is when we approach this from the OTHER angle.

The other angle being the zen buddhist, or simply the way of Buddha. Where, after strong self-reflection in meditation, one could determine that each and every single problem, pain and issue in life comes from attachment to this world, to this body, to one's parents, to one's habits, to one's joy (to one's sexuality, to one's power, and so on and so on). Then, after deciding that it is NOT the experience that we want to have, one could simply let these attachments fall off, and a natural mini-evolution will take place. One not centered around the physical experience and the emotions related to this experience.

If your angle is the same than this, then I might have greatly misunderstood you. But I do perceive a great difference. The zen buddhist does not rush it. Does not say "beware of the dangers". But when a young student complains about its tasks, its body pains or discomforts, he smiles. He might have the same pains for decades, but it is okay. Because the "master" understands that really, when the time comes for the student, then he, without outside poking, advices and lectures, will naturally start walking on the way of less attachments, less physical experience.

Thank you for this Oldern. you have given me reason to think further on the matter.

It also comes in perfect synchronicity with the post which just finished here in the gun law thread

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...#pid111167

causing me to think even further in that regard as well.

You are right in that we all have our time and state of being to acquire certain truths and understandings. And nothing should ever be imposed without consideration of this, otherwise you are just trying to shake the immature apple tree in frustration hoping your effort will produce fruit even though it may not be ready. I have often used that analogy.

But, having acknowledge your wisdom in this regard, I add to it with my own sharing and thought process/IMPRESSION/UNDERSTANDING. ( the emphasis is not for your benefit, my friend, it is offered elsehwere).

In the nurturing of that maturing apple tree we are not opposing ourselves upon it when we add fertilizer to its roots, support from the winds of confrontation, and trim away any obstructions which may confuse it enough to become misdirection and shock to its development.

As I stated in the gun law thread, passivity is not a benefit to safe environment.

This is where I part ways with Asian philosophies. The whole aspect of not doing harm while living in an environment in which we are under constant threat does not seem to be conducive to discretion based upon circumstance.

It is nice to never have to harm anything at all.

It is unwise to just sit and become completely vulnerable to those things which you would rather allow.

To put that in context with our discussion here, regarding the Buddhist view you offer as being more tolerant of the Other Side, I will say that although it is exceedingly beneficial with regard to balancing issues and circumstances, we must also be aware that the extreme aspect of that will result in adverse consequences just like any other extreme.

It is rarely the balanced and middle of the road circumstances that create the real problems that we face as societies and individual seekers of truth and knowledge. The problems arise as the consequence of imbalance, where the extreme views and actions become the focus.

And in religious 'persuasion' this is of course exaggerated by the passions which accompany the intimacy and very 'attaching' aspects of one's spiritual experience.

The Buddhists promote peace and tranquility and succeed in secluding themselves from the normal environments where we gather together as a myriad of opinions and beliefs. And as long as they remain secluded like that their philosophy can remain relatively intact.

However it does not adapt well to the real human experience.

This is precisely why, what you stated about managing to detach from all of those 'things' is able to allow one to better navigate one's spiritual journey.

Oldern- "...every single problem, pain and issue in life comes from attachment to this world, to this body, to one's parents, to one's habits, to one's joy (to one's sexuality, to one's power, and so on and so on). Then, after deciding that it is NOT the experience that we want to have, one could simply let these attachments fall off, and a natural mini-evolution will take place. One not centered around the physical experience and the emotions related to this experience." UNQUOTE

In this we agree.

The difference which you spoke of regarding the rushing of another's process of being, I am also in full agreement with.

Where we may differ is where you say this, "

"The zen buddhist does not rush it. Does not say "beware of the dangers."

I do not think that being so passive that we ignore our very real environment, and the fact that we must somehow adapt within it, is compatible with surviving within it. Nor is it a more efficient means of spiritual development.

It seems to me that not offering warning when you see need, or avoiding discussion where differences may arise, simply disables the sacred sharing which is supposed to be honestly and freely passed back and forth.

yes, a mind might not be able to comprehend a certain matter which you are trying to offer them for consideration in their present state. But it is my understanding that it is with those confusions and considerations that they take with them that they are able to manage a more usable comprehension of them as they are considered over time.

Without that catalyst being offered, or placed in their path, what is there to consider?

Would that not be like standing in an already plowed field with a plow?

[Unbound]

Silence speaks.

[Shin'Ar]

Relevant to this post, just the other day I was having a discussion with a friend who was talking about his continued attraction to darkness and his inner demons. At first I was uncertain whether or not I should give my honest opinion, in light of the "not infringing on free will", but then I realized that reality brought me and this individual so that we could interact, and that we could share our fields together. Thus, I realized that it is best to be honest and clear about your perceptions, because sometimes you may actually give someone exactly what they need.

Such was the case in this situation, I told him how I honestly saw things, and he found that he actually resonated with what I was saying and for himself came in to a deeper trust of his own wisdom.

If this existence was only about experiencing our own perceptions, void of all other input, what would be the reason for the fragmented consciousness?

You are wise tanner. We both know that. How can the sharing of that wisdom ever be inconsequential to intelligent consciousness? When it is NOT shared.

Let those who have a problem with the sharing learn this themselves. Let those realize the great importance of sharing, go about sharing.

Unless you actually get a headlock on someone and drag them into your place of worship and force them to bow down to the gods you choose to worship, teaching is just teaching.

[Unbound]

Silence speaks.

[Joseph326]

I AM. Any definition other than that implies a limited perception. We are different people at every moment. Peace and love.