Quite interesting - Mayan day/nights and earth periods

[Bring4th_Austin]

I definitely wouldn't view it that way. I mean, 5 years is awfully strict, considering Ra constantly pointed out their problems with numbers, and used the terms "approximately" or "this is an approximation" and "we speak in generalities" (which they said themselves is dangerous). It is your right to not take the information seriously if the harvest doesn't happen the way you feel it was supposed to, but that's really the essence of what I'm speaking about. Expectations can be frivolous and dangerous.

'intelligent infinity offers a type of clock' is not an approximate statement.

No, but it does not define exactly what that means. "Offers a type of clock" doesn't have to mean it hits in a moments time, it only means it is on a schedule. We know that 4D vibrations hit at an exact moment, we know they'll be here completely in a moments time, but this means nothing about harvest.

"The striking of an hour," in regards to the scope of the universe, could easily be 100 year period. The fact that it is a moments time for us is only an interpretation. Of course it could be a moments time, but it could not be.

Then, of course, even if it was a moments time, Ra constantly spoke about approximations and mistakes regarding time periods. The striking of the hour could not happen for years due to Ra's difficulty.

Not only that, but no one knows what "the gateway from intelligent energy to intelligent infinity opens" means. It's open to wild interpretation, including the idea that it only happens in time/space. Ra never said it was something that happened in space/time. Assuming anything outside of Ra's words is...well...an assumption.

Ra was very specific about many things, unfortunately, for some reason, Don never pushed the questions on Harvest enough to get a clear answer. Don got close to asking a good question, asking if Harvest will be spread out or in 2011, but only got this:

This is an approximation. We have stated we have difficulty with your time/space. This is an appropriate probable/possible time/space nexus for harvest. Those who are not in incarnation at this time will be included in the harvest

Approximation, difficulty with your time/space...throw in some other ideas through the material, like an extended transition period, the concept of 4D bodies coming from reproductive evolution, dual bodied individuals, and we just don't have a clear picture of how it is supposed to happen.

---

there is nothing left to vagueness in the above information about harvest.

ra may have difficulties about planet's time/space. however, they gave a year for happening of the harvest, as opposed to giving a time period. and this, was in response to a question that specifically asked about whether it would be spread out.

They gave an approximate year...which is vague. They even hammered in the fact they have difficulty with our time. This gives the material a clause...if it doesn't happen in 2011, maybe 2012...if not 2012, maybe 2013...if not 2013, maybe 2040. Who knows what Ra considers an approximation? On top of that, just because the questioner offered a single year and Ra did not state a time period does not translate to harvest happening at a single moment. It COULD, of course, but it is not 100% sure statement.

Saying "those who are not in incarnation at this time will be included in the harvest" is fodder for questioning. For one, why would he say "those who are not in incarnation at this time will be included in the harvest" and not "all will be harvested"? Why make a special statement for those not in incarnation if everyone at that very moment will be harvested? Why separate the two groups, incarnate and not incarnate? It hints that this is the moment that disincarnate entities will be harvested, but not necessarily incarnate entities. Of course that is a single interpretation...which is my point, it can be interpreted many ways.

Also, saying "this is an appropriate probable/possible time/space nexus for harvest" is WIDELY open for interpretation. "Probably/possible" means it is NOT definite. It means it MAY happen then. Again, in 40 years, someone could point to that statement and say "it could still be valid, because Ra said it was only possible."

at this point 'gates to intelligent infinity opens regardless of the circumstances upon striking of the hour' is necessary to remember.

There is still no way to know what this means, how it happens, where it happens, or whether "striking of the hour" means a moments time, or simply on a strict schedule. You have a very defined idea of what you think it is. But again, in 40 years, if nothing happens, someone can still interpret it to be correct....you may not, but many others may.

So many people dismiss Q'uo now because the channeling method is different from the Ra material. I guess that's up to the discernment of the individual. I trust Q'uo as long as Carla and Jim are channeling them, and as long as they don't touch on Carla's obviously ingrained beliefs (resurrections of Jesus, etc.)

quo material leaning towards the channelers' beliefs in subjects like resurrections of jesus etc, would mean that it would also lean towards he biases of the channelers in other subjects they feel strongly about.

Right, I've got no reason to believe Carla feels strongly about how harvest will happen. Reading her material on channeling makes me believe she knows what it takes to be a clear channel. I don't expect someone who was raised devoutly Christian to give up those beliefs for channeling, but other things accumulated along the way, such as what is harvest, I don't expect she has strong feelings that would distort the message to a great degree. I'd imagine she would be loyal to the information she channeled in the Ra material anyways.




I can imagine your response, talking about how there is no other way all of these things can be interpreted and nothing I've related to them is valid, but...it's all your interpretation. It's your own view of the Ra material, and you have reasons for interpreting it the way you do. You are steadfast in your interpretations and believe them heartily, but not everyone will share those interpretations. You perceive things one way and others will perceive things their way and there is no escaping that. The fact it can be debated now is proof that it can be looked at differently by different people.