02-07-2014, 02:43 PM
I believe that the quote from Ra used in the OP changes meaning when removed from the context of the Ra material. The full question and answer:
Don asks very specifically about understanding the Law of One, not about general understanding. There are many points in the Ra material where Ra acknowledges Don's understanding, asks Don to understand something, or points out requirements to understand other concepts within 3rd density. What Ra is saying in this particular question is that an entity must consciously realize it does not understand the Law of One in order for it to be harvestable.
This is made clearer in other parts of the material, such as when Ra describes the necessity of the veil. Take the poker game analogy for instance:
If an entity believes it understands the Law of One, it is bypassing the most essential part of our experience here - that we have forgotten that all things are One. We cannot understand true unity in this reality because this reality was designed for us to not understand. Thus, believing we understand hinders, rather than helps, our progress to the next density.
To address the true heart of the OP, while it's true that we're all here to discuss a text which proclaims itself to be given by an alien society from Venus, this does not in any way mean we have to accept that it comes from such a source to discuss it. The internal philosophy of the text is consistent enough to spawn interesting discussion about some of the core questions many people have about life.
To say that everything is a personal truth simply doesn't hold up in our shared reality. If you take several entities who believe they are the only Jesus Christ walking upon the Earth again (such entities do exist), and put them into a room together, will they see each other? Is one's belief that they are the true Jesus (personal truth) compatible with another's? These personal realities clash and are not compatible. Sure, each may exist within their individual reality, but wouldn't it be more useful to consider the fact that there is a reality shared by each individual which is not 100% subject to the individual's truth?
Some people have emptied their bank accounts due to the fact that they considered an imminent rapture "truth," and yet their personal truth did them no good come the following day. Many people held strong to the "truth" that on December 21, 2012, we would be harvested, ascend to 4D bodies, and all pain and suffering would be gone. On December 22, there was some panic and confusion, many "personal truths" crumbled due to the fact that expectations were not met. What did these personal truths hold sway to? If there is not a shared reality, whether we call it objective or inter-subjective, then what happened to these personal truths?
This is the basis for sharing our subjective experiences, and then questioning and discussing with each other these subjective experiences. When being questioned about an instant ascension in 2012, some would evade, some would be defensive, and some would proclaim that it is their personal truth and thus it will come true. If, perhaps, they were to openly discuss their perspective with the willingness to admit that what they labeled as "truth" may be an artifact of their desires, biases, or distortions, then perhaps they could have processed such catalyst in a calmer environment, on their own terms, rather than be met with the crueler catalyst of disappointment on December 23rd.
Quote:Questioner: I am assuming it is not necessary for an individual to understand the Law of One to go from third to fourth density. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. It is absolutely necessary that an entity consciously realize it does not understand in order for it to be harvestable. Understanding is not of this density.
Don asks very specifically about understanding the Law of One, not about general understanding. There are many points in the Ra material where Ra acknowledges Don's understanding, asks Don to understand something, or points out requirements to understand other concepts within 3rd density. What Ra is saying in this particular question is that an entity must consciously realize it does not understand the Law of One in order for it to be harvestable.
This is made clearer in other parts of the material, such as when Ra describes the necessity of the veil. Take the poker game analogy for instance:
Quote:This game can only be won by those who lose their cards in the melting influence of love; can only be won by those who lay their pleasures, their limitations, their all upon the table face up and say inwardly: “All, all of you players, each other-self, whatever your hand, I love you.” This is the game: to know, to accept, to forgive, to balance, and to open the self in love. This cannot be done without the forgetting, for it would carry no weight in the life of the mind/body/spirit beingness totality.
If an entity believes it understands the Law of One, it is bypassing the most essential part of our experience here - that we have forgotten that all things are One. We cannot understand true unity in this reality because this reality was designed for us to not understand. Thus, believing we understand hinders, rather than helps, our progress to the next density.
To address the true heart of the OP, while it's true that we're all here to discuss a text which proclaims itself to be given by an alien society from Venus, this does not in any way mean we have to accept that it comes from such a source to discuss it. The internal philosophy of the text is consistent enough to spawn interesting discussion about some of the core questions many people have about life.
To say that everything is a personal truth simply doesn't hold up in our shared reality. If you take several entities who believe they are the only Jesus Christ walking upon the Earth again (such entities do exist), and put them into a room together, will they see each other? Is one's belief that they are the true Jesus (personal truth) compatible with another's? These personal realities clash and are not compatible. Sure, each may exist within their individual reality, but wouldn't it be more useful to consider the fact that there is a reality shared by each individual which is not 100% subject to the individual's truth?
Some people have emptied their bank accounts due to the fact that they considered an imminent rapture "truth," and yet their personal truth did them no good come the following day. Many people held strong to the "truth" that on December 21, 2012, we would be harvested, ascend to 4D bodies, and all pain and suffering would be gone. On December 22, there was some panic and confusion, many "personal truths" crumbled due to the fact that expectations were not met. What did these personal truths hold sway to? If there is not a shared reality, whether we call it objective or inter-subjective, then what happened to these personal truths?
This is the basis for sharing our subjective experiences, and then questioning and discussing with each other these subjective experiences. When being questioned about an instant ascension in 2012, some would evade, some would be defensive, and some would proclaim that it is their personal truth and thus it will come true. If, perhaps, they were to openly discuss their perspective with the willingness to admit that what they labeled as "truth" may be an artifact of their desires, biases, or distortions, then perhaps they could have processed such catalyst in a calmer environment, on their own terms, rather than be met with the crueler catalyst of disappointment on December 23rd.
_____________________________
The only frontier that has ever existed is the self.
The only frontier that has ever existed is the self.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)