(01-15-2016, 03:16 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: I specifically mentioned that line in my reply. Ra's disclaimer makes it clear that he doesn't think of things in terms of incarnation, but he recognizes that we do. That DOES change the meaning. There really isn't such a thing as "incarnation," just constantly-shifting states of being, and it's only from a veiled 3rd-Density perspective that the word\concept really has much importance.
Is this an ancillary point? Sure. But it seems a bit cavalier to gloss over it for the sake of simplification, since Ra was presumably trying to provide clues for interested readers\listeners to what the higher-density perspective looks like.
Ah, see your point now. I guess I'm so deeply familiar with the true state of how incarnation works, I overlooked how important that could potentially be to someone who only believes the oversimplified concept of linear "reincarnation".
I suppose I didn't want to bring it up before because I don't want anyone to feel that I have a more 'advanced' understanding of this material since many associate advanced with 'better than' or 'holier than thou'. I didn't want to make myself out to be some all-knowing expert of the material. I feel I have a very firm, mostly undistributed grasp, but I can think or 4 or 5 people here who I feel have a better understanding. I just feel like I'm at the point I don't need the little clarifications Ra makes because I am intimately familiar with most (if not all) of them and thus don't need the reminder. I mostly find them to be distracting; thus the intent of doing something like this.
I guess the intended audience for my proposed "strike-throughed" version of the LOO would be more 'advanced' or 'intermediate' seekers of the Ra Material (for lack of a better term) that don't need that extra language, yet don't understand every single last bit of the material 'without significant distortion'. Of course, anyone of any familiarity level would be welcome to read it.