Ra's Adventures in Wonderland

[Tenet Nosce]

Oh, hello. I suppose it's time to respond.

No time like the present!

Likewise. But it is going to happen anyway.

Yes, it is. But it is not in any case necessary.

It is well for the seeker to notice when a projection has been made, and to consciously withdraw it. This attitude is what differentiates the disciple from the multitudes.

The multitudes, when presented with their own projection, further reject and disown it. This, of course, reinforces the seeming duality of "self" and "other" and acts as an agent of further imbalance in their experience, thus resulting in "karma."

Incidentally, if you were to happen to notice somewhere that I projected into the material, please point it out.

Third density experience (represented by the 21 Archetypes) is the laying of the foundation, culminating in the last concept complex in Archetype 22- The Choice.

This is not a faithful representation of the quote (77.12), though the error is easy to make... In this case, you have interpreted the foundation (the Archetypical Mind) as culminating in another Archetype (22), rather than an experience which is described by that Archetype.

The entirety of the Archetypical Mind is the foundation, for this must be in place before the illusion is established. In other words, The Choice, as Ra has confirmed, is part of the Logoic plan. The concept complex of The Choice describes the culmination of the experience of 3D, but it, itself, is not that culmination.

Ra says: "building and constructing and synthesizing of data culminating in The Choice."

Those aren't my words. Those are Ra's words. There is no more "faithful representation" than to state a direct quote.

As we know, and has been pointed out in this thread multiple times, entities can make a decision between "STS" and "STO" while being relatively unconscious. Therefore, how can this constitute a "building and synthesizing of data"?

rather, it refers to the simplicity of the Archetype.

I don't think so. If Ra meant "simple" they would have used that word. In that quote, Ra is making a differentiation of Archetype 22 from the other ones, by speaking of it as "fixed and single" relative to the other Archetypes.

Defining "single" as "simple" is fallacious.

(30.1). (Note that Ra was the one who introduced the word “choice,” which did not appear in the question.)

The Archetypes are not being discussed anywhere in Session 30. The discussion of the Archetypes doesn't begin until Session 66.

Ra describes the vibrational densities as recapitulating in reverse the creation in its unity.

That is a fascinating point!

If the two are distinct, how can they also be spoken of as the same?

Because human beings, due to certain limitations of our mind and language, tend to use the same word to refer to several different concepts. Moreover, we tend to conflate the various definitions of words due to a logical fallacy called equivocation.

This same thought-process can be applied to The Choice.

If the basic thrust of your point is "as above, so below", then you will get no argument from me. Yet the relationship of macrocosm to microcosm is that of congruence, not identity. They aren't the same thing.

It is evident throughout the Ra Material that the purpose of 3D is to choose either positive or negative and then step into 4D where work exclusively within one of these polarities can then begin.

It is evident that the purpose of 3D is to gain enough polarization in order to attract a sufficient amount of "light of harvestable quality" (85.11) in order to actualize Free Will through the Archetype of The Choice.

Which path of polarization that is used is secondary, and past 6D is irrelevant. The only relevance that it does bear in the lower densities is due to the strong bias of our Logos toward the positive path.

To argue otherwise flies in the face of the whole of the work.

To argue that there is a real distinction between "self" and "other" flies in the face of the Law of One.

Your emphasis on The Choice occurring at the end of third density seems to lose track of this simple common-sense message within the Ra Material.

Perhaps your strong bias toward ethics and activity is why it may seem to you that I have lost track of this common-sense message.

"Be nice and helpful to others." This is what you think is the big take-home message from the material? Ra made contact with L/L in order to offer us a common-sense message? Why would we need Ra to tell us what should be common-sense?

I do not disagree with you that the choice is offered at harvest – how can I, you have a quote to support it.

Then, whatever you are arguing against is your own projection.

However, I do disagree with you that this is the only interpretation of the word.

This would be your projection. I never said this. What I am pointing out is an obvious distinction between where Ra is talking about Archetype 22- The Choice, and where Ra is merely using the word "choice" in the usual sense.

I would suggest that the Choice offered at Harvest is the macrocosm, whereas the choice in each and every moment (STS or STO) is the microcosm.

I don't think so. The microcosm of The Choice, is to choose whether to polarize or to remain in the sinkhole of difference. The path of polarization is a secondary decision.

But yes, in each moment we recapitulate that choice by either deciding to use the catalyst at hand for service, or to let it fall by the wayside.

If you attend to each Archetype, you will see that each has macrocosms and microcosms.

Yes, clearly. But again, the relationship of macrocosm and microcosm is congruence, not identity. They are not the same.

Archetype 20, for example, can be seen in macrocosm as representing the Harvest itself.

Yes, exactly. Therefore, why do you suppose Ra put 22 - The Choice at the end of the deck, rather than at the beginning, where it is represented as 0 - The Fool?

(and why do I keep asking this question over and over again with no response?)

22 ought not to be seen as any different in this sense.

It is different because Ra says that it is "fixed and single", relative to the other Archetypes.

First, Ra was aware of the archetype, but they were not aware of its significance.

If Ra graduated without being aware of its significance, then why would they present it as something so important to us?

Second, it is quite possible to make a choice without realizing that you had a choice.

Not really, no.

The unawakened do this on a regular basis.

What the unawakened are doing is acting on subconscious impulses arising from their biases. That's not really a demonstration of free will.

However, we would presume that in the preincarnative veil-free state, the entity does in fact choose which biases to program the incarnation with.

But on this side of the veil, an entity acquires free will (i.e. makes choices) despite of their programmed biases, not because of them.

Before the veiling, service to others was always chosen because it was not realized that there was an alternative.

Due to the extreme bias of the Logos. Outside of our Logos, the negative path was surely known. And- it was known to our Logos else there couldn't have been a bias to begin with.