Share your vision for the harvest

[unity100]

Unity - You're not being honest with yourself brother, and you're not fooling anyone. You've been studying this material for 15 years I believe you once said. You've been over these quotes dozens of times, and I've seen you argue this topic endlessly since I've joined this site. There is always room for learning and change, yes.

- at no point i said i was infallible
- having dwelt on a material for 15 years does not mean you gave equal weight to everything

the rest, is unintelligible to me. 'honest with myself' what ? 'fooling anyone' who ? what do these even mean. learning and change ? what's that ? change we can believe in ?

The Unity of today does not agree with the Unity of a week ago because you can't make a definitive statement. None of us can. We don't know the answer. You won't admit it, and that's fine. Embrace misunderstanding and be open to the possibility that others may be correct. In other words, you may be wrong.

unity of last week didnt dwell on this matter of harvest this long. when discovered the important pointers he himself brought here, his perspective CHANGED properly, in the light of the information he received, and became unity of today.

he didnt try to find ways around the information he discovered, or tried to ignore it because of his biases.

Going back to a way earlier discussion we had, I was trying to point out the words which Ra says which would leave it readily open for interpretation by anyone. The "probability" and "approximately" are open for interpretation to someone who would wish to still believe in harvest if nothing happened in the near future. "It was just a probability, as well as an approximation." That isn't something that could be argued with, and would simply have to be dismissed on one's own logic. I wasn't trying to say that harvest could last that long, or that the process was that long, simply that it could be argued by someone that 2011, 2012, or anytime in the near future, isn't necessarily the date for harvest.

there is a certain limit which words 'approximately' and 'probability' can accommodate in regard to possibilities. a probability defined as having a time period in between 100 and 700 years, is different from the probability window of something that is told to happen at a certain date, and not be a period that goes over that date.

if applied into this subject - one can argue harvest may not happen in 2011, or in an alternate reality it happened in 2010. or, may say it may happen in 2013.

but, one may not extend the probability window SO much that it suddenly transforms into becoming 900 years a period. the reasons, if i need to reiterate again - i am sure someone just selectively miss perceiving these if i dont - :

- harvest was told NOT to be something that spans a period
- harvest was told to happen IN 2011
- merging these, one can only conclude that harvest would be something that would encompass at most a year, even if it was a period.
- one can at most conclude that harvest would be something that would last at most around a years' vicinity
- one can at most conclude that harvest may happen in 2011, 2010, 2009, 2012, 2013 or similar.
- it is not possible to slap a 900 year period

Besides the probabilities and approximations, what I am calling ambiguous is the actual mechanic of harvest, as none of us know what it is or how it will happen. We know that a gateway to intelligent infinity is opened. The ambiguous part I see is the fact that it could easily be that it is opened for those entities in time/space, and then all those passing into time/space after that time period will have access to it as well. I'm not denying the possibility that it may happen for those in space/time, but that is not the only possible scenario I see.

that is incorrect. harvest mechanisms were clearly defined in numerous subjects. these range from earth changes, to moving into 4d, to what happens after death, archetypal talk regarding logoic archetypes etc. mechanism of harvest was also explained for pre-veil, and compared with mechanism of post-veil.

Ra says here "these entities are not a social memory complex," whereas Ra never says "entities within incarnation will be aware of the opening of the gateway, entities within incarnation will be aware of the harvesting, entities within incarnation will immediately be harvested." I (now) realize you've changed your viewpoint somewhat, but I'm still seeing both possibilities, where "harvest," starting instantly and lasting until the last person unharvested person in incarnation at that point dies naturally, only being harvested after death...or harvested instantly from space/time, or somewhere in between.

the above quote makes your issue with not the date of harvest, but the mechanism of harvest and whether it includes death, or not.

i have already included the quotes which made me change my opinion about not having to die in the earlier pages. i wont reiterate these. as long as those quotes stand, what they collectively mean, is going to stay the same. it seems to be necessary for an entity to die and placed in another dimension for the word 'harvest' to be filled in the meaning it is used in those. even for 150 entities that were harvestable in 2nd cycle, the word 'harvestable' is used instead of 'harvested entities'.

But if the person replies "it's probable/possible that the red crate is fresher," is that not an ambiguous answer? It means that they might be, or they might not be. I was never contending that harvest could LAST for so many years...from the material, what I gather, the possibility I'm seeing is that harvest would last until the last person who was alive during harvest dies naturally...could be 50-100 years generously. My main contention about being open for interpretation was "approximately" and "probability/possibility." It's pretty safe to assume harvest is nigh, as I'm sure most here have done, but like I said, if nothing noticeable happens in the next few years, and someone wants to believe it still could, could point at those words and say "see, it's still possible."

the person did not reply saying 'it is possible that red crate is a fresher'. however the example is apparently open to misperception. i will correct it with the below example i gave later for icaro :

your friend comes to your house. you ask him whether he wants soda or tea. he responds, 'tea'. you give him soda, and tell him that you interpreted him to mean soda.

if, there was a probability of harvest taking 50 years, that would make harvest an event that is spread over a period, and ra would TELL it. don asked whether it was spread over a period or at a certain date, and the answer was a certain date. i am appalled that we are still discussing this.

I've explicitly seen Tenet address the whole of the "gradualist standpoint" as being caught on some sort of bias, and this is what I was thinking you were agreeing with.

i am agreeing with it. it is explicitly told in the material that harvest is not an event that is spread over a period of time. the transition into a 4d plane/society was told to take from 100 to 700 years with the current probabilities then.

there is indeed a lot of bias surrounding this issue.

as for 'psychoanalysis qualification' or any other concern regarding observing bias, the below sequence i experienced with icaro is sufficient for me - i will just include part of my reply to icaro :

- started off with holding harvest and 'transition/move' into 4d as one and same
- when it was shown that they were not, you switched to arguing harvest had possibly started in 1937 with the move into 4d vibrations
- when it was shown that there were entities waiting for harvest despite being disincarnate, this time you outright went and slapped a 900 year harvest duration out of nowhere

and as of this moment you are still dwelling on it, despite a clear, purpose-specific question asked for querying exactly the same thing, and answer being contrary to what you hold in view as of now. you are just ignoring it and this time :

- going the way of claiming 'intuition' in 'reinterpretation' of a clearly worded, specifically asked question and its plain, blunt, direct answer

at the end of this sequence, i dont see anything possible other than concluding a bias is affecting judgment of the other participant.

Like I said, I don't know if I completely understand your new perspective. I tried reading the thread over a couple times...what do you consider "short harvest?" I don't think there's any Ra material to support a harvest that is longer than the remaining lifespan of entities incarnated during harvest, only material which could support that harvest wouldn't start for a number of years, thus not being over for an even longer number of years.

Is the "short harvest" you talk about basically what I am saying? Only long enough for the entities to die of natural causes?

you can go back 2-3 pages and read what i found and what i concluded with my findings. i will just summarize here - if you need pointers and reasoning, you should just roll the pages back :

- as per the major important quote of Ra responding with a certain date to a question that asks whether it was to happen at a certain date or be spread over time, it is definite that harvest is not an event that goes over a years' duration with our year concept. so, harvest should take 365 years the most. even if possibilities introduced into this, the duration cannot be longer than a year and a half with good probability - if, it was likely to be a period that long, ra would tell that it would take in between X years and Y years. they did not - they told it was to happen at a certain year. there are no exceptions - ra gives the period interval when they talk about periods. this basically says harvest will happen in a duration shorter than a year. it also means it is near, very likely in 2011.

- first i had the notion of dying not be a necessity for harvest. however as per the quotes i shared, basing on the wordage used for those who were harvestable and who were harvested, their incarnational status (some deceased, some living, some 2nd cycle harvestables), it seems that dying is a necessity for completion of harvest, EVEN if opening the gateway to intelligent infinity during incarnation is told to be a ticket to next octave of experience. (even surpassing harvest process itself) but, the wordage used for, and the situation of the harvestable and harvested entities, basically tell us that the word 'harvested' requires replacement in a 4d continuum, here or elsewhere - this requires death. previously, i didnt think i was necessary to die for getting harvested. now, i see that the status 'harvestable' and 'harvested' are not used interchangeably. in this light, the phrase 'all are harvested regardless of progress' becomes rather prophetic.

like what is told below :

As I said earlier, I can see the process extending for months, not much past a year. Certainly not extending past generations.

That would be true for this particular statement, but I was referring to posts such as the one stating "A gradualist view is very human-centric," continuing on explaining that gradualists are upset about the idea of death or "leaving someone behind."

it actually is. gradualist view is SO comfortable that, there would not be a rush to increase harvest numbers with that perspective. people would have at least 70 years from the start of the harvest to live, and there would be 100 years to work on increasing the harvest, and 70 of these years would be under the comfortable (!) unhindered instreamings of 4d vibrations. which would bolster any kind of spiritual work or awareness. moreover, the gradualist view also accommodates a great situation in which the existing dynamics and mechanics of life as established are not disturbed in an uncomfortable fashion at all - at most, they 'change' rapidly due to 'fast awakening' of people en masse.

and ALL presenting logical arguments, and that's the point I was trying to make. The statement wasn't argumentative, but rather to point out that both camps, instant vs. gradual, have supplied many many logical arguments.

all was not presenting logical arguments. there was no logic in what some people said. eventually they came to say that they believed that things would happen in certain way x, due to their intuition. there isnt a logic in this.

and maybe surprisingly, i wasnt also bringing logical arguments. what i concluded, solely rests on what Ra has said, as included in the quotes. if you ask me regarding the logic of these, i may tell you i find some logical, some illogical, some this way, some that way - but these doesnt change what Ra has explicitly, clearly shared as information. therefore what i have shared are not based on logic - they are based on plain english language direct answers Ra gave to plain direct questions - in the matter of duration and date of harvest - , and their choice of words and situations of those who were harvested and harvestable in the case of dying being a necessity for the term 'harvested' being fulfilled.

Ra very clearly describes that 4D bodies are born of gradual bisexual reproductive evolution. I've tried showing you this quote 3 or 4 times now Sad

the problem with mystery surrounding 4d bodies being gradually born out of normal evolution is, the 4d and 3d being defined as different planes/dimensions. this implies that due to 3-4d bodies being present both in 3d and 4d, they are also undertaking actions in 4d without even knowing. it is possible that their manifestation in 4d, is doing this reproduction in 4d, and creating 4d bodies.

what leads me to this possibility is the fact that the dimensions 4d and 3d are quite different. there would be a certain point where a body shows more of the 4d features than 3d features, and what would happen at that point in time regarding visibility of 4d, or this and that paranormal phenomenon that is radically different from 3d ? you have a daughter - now you see her, now you dont, is it ?

however this is an interpretation. 3d-4d entities can stay as much as they want to on this planet and continue reproducing - this is their home planet, their bodies can withstand 4d energies and they dont need to be harvested. others, however, need to be harvested.

..............

other important points :

- like tenet mentioned, you cant just 'depopulate' 7 billion entities like that. 700 years of transition requires a population decline rate of 60 million.
- 3d bodies cant withstand 4d. planet will fully align to 4d vibrations soon. this will make 4d a habitable solid sphere. what will happen to 3d entities for the duration of that 700 years of transition if they live here ? dropping like flies due to illnesses and fast death introduced due to randomly interacting with 4d ?