06-03-2011, 12:15 PM
(06-03-2011, 09:20 AM)zenmaster Wrote: How can there be 'no mistakes', yet then an identification of 'mistakes'? Sounds like Ra's reluctant use of 3D 'understanding'.
Folks, there are errors in judgement - often seen in retrospect. We call them 'mistakes'. Big deal. People here tend to be hyper-sensitive to pointing out 'flawed' actions. I think it's either due to some identification with personal value or worth to that action, or that the perceived intention of the action was the more important consideration. This is the realm of comparison or duality. One can work within and benefit from that illusion (by creating knowledge systems) while simultaneously not identifying with it (i.e. as would be indicated by the disowned, unconscious emotional responses to upsetting evaluations).
You do know you just described the meaning of the philosophy of the phrase "there are no mistakes", don't you? I believe you do.
@Ankh
to say 'Ra messed up' , to me, is to say that Ra isn't perfect. That's all. I mean, shouldn't they have known what the result would be? I think they did know, and I think it was still the processes of synchronicities that needed to happen. Had they not, then 1987 channeling wouldn't have occurred as it did. They aren't all knowing, but they can see closer to the "unity" of infinity. The explanations given are details of the humans twisting their intentions. Mistake? No not at all. All things necessary for the One thought.