3rd density time and precession

[Quantum]

I also encourage you to read this.

http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?op...&Itemid=30

It answered a lot of my questions, or at least helped me put it together some of the material.

---------------------------------------------------------------------Dear Dear airwaves,
As recommended and invited, I took the liberty of reading the gentleman's post that you recommended above, i.e. as regards the interpretations of the writer's sentiments with respect to what I consider to be "his very personal and perhaps biased interpretation" with respect to what "he believes" are Ra's sentiments concerning 2012. Many of us are very familiar with this author's writings, and arguably he has done a great deal to promote the Law of One extensively. However, that notwithstanding, he seems adamantly committed to his interpretations of the Ra Material with respect to 2012 as "an end of life coming" to life as we know it, and this as being fixed, static, immovable, immutable, and solidified. I would offer that his opening dialog begins "The time has come, because I'm getting tired of repeating myself, to be quite honest!" and then in fact does so at great length. His position, simply stated, is that life as we know it will end. He references Ra extensively, and even adeptly, so as to support 'his theory' , and states unequivocally that it is Ra's. This is an "all or nothing position" and he stakes everything, including life itself, on this one single fact, allowing no alternative.

In order to accept a truth as an inevitable bit of logic towards its conclusion(s), one must first and foremost accept the premise(s) stated as fact before one may then follow the logic to conclude it's correctness. Argue the premise, and the logic falls apart.

I question the premise(s) of the post (far too long to list) but invite all to read, as did you originally above. Several arguments to the contrary come to mind as a result:

(1): Let us assume what Ra said was in fact true, as per the sentiments stated. If so, may things not change? If the answer is yes, as it always must be, then release this interpretation from it's "stricture" (a Ra term), as perhaps as the energy befitting those possibilities, in those vortices, at that time interval.

(2) Other readings, most notably Quo, suggest that the energies may have evolved since, and as such, that perhaps the changes may be far less severe, and thus far more gradual, if not forgiving.
(a) Let us remember that Quo states that "They" are part of the Ra group. One would have to argue against this in order to argue against this possibility.
(b) Carla Ruckert, who channeled Ra, is now channeling Quo. The source seems impeccable, and as such has withstood the test of time. Clearly we are all in agreement to at least this premise, as offered by the proof that we are here to discuss and challenge ourselves to higher ground as regards the LOO (Law of One)?
© The writer of your reference has openly challenged the Quo material (as being less than factual), which in a sense questions Carla's channeling abilities, or source, or at the very least the accuracy of her connection to the Quo source.
(d) If we question Carla as regards Quo, then why stop there and not question Carla as regards Ra? Perhaps she is as good at it, or has gotten better at it, verses worse?
(e) But the author then also goes on to state that he would have us believe he too now channels Ra these days. I can not dispute this, nor would I, but I would question why we would take this position as more true when we are presumably asked to believe that he too channels Ra(?) but that Carla who channeled Ra originally, and is now channeling Quo, would be less accurate(?) ,this while his current Ra channeling's are more accurate(?), and against the backdrop of the fact that Carla presumably can not contact the Ra group specifically any longer as the result of Don's inability to participate?
(f) Finally, we know at great length of Carla's and Don's and Jim's very strict requirements as regards the Ra channeling sessions, as much as we do to their great body of work. We know very little as to the author's stringent requirements of his Ra channeling sessions, or much of his body of work as regards the Ra channeling's specifically. This is not to impugn his channeling abilities, but only to draw a comparative analysis of each's respective works verses their outcomes, and to question, given his questions or challenges against Quo, verses his assertion he channels Ra.

(3) The Ra readings specifically expressed the 100-700 year possibility as to the length of time of transition as well, and seems to leave as much open in the same vein that did Quo in the Ruckert session as regards the length of time of transition.

Ra: This intelligent energy offers a type of clock. The cycles move as precisely as a clock strikes your hour. Thus, the gateway from intelligent energy to intelligent infinity opens regardless of circumstance on the striking of the hour."

Ra: At this particular nexus the possibility/probability vortices indicate somewhere between 100 and 700 of your years as transition period. This cannot be accurate due to the volatility of your peoples at this space/time.

Even Ra states this can not be accurate. Let us than allow that we can not know with accuracy then.

From the author of the referenced site airwaves offers as regards Ra's quote above: Here is the one and ONLY 'gradualist' quote in the entire Law of One series. You just read the ONE quote that has created the WHOLE PROBLEM everyone's arguing about......As we're about to see, this 100-700 year period does not start counting as of the time of the Law of One material… it begins in 1936. Trip out on this for a minute. We entered into a whole different structure of reality as we know it, beginning in 1936.

1936 plus 700 = 2636?
As for Quo suggesting 300 years, it lies somewhere between what Ra inferred as roughly 2300? My point being, do we transition at the beginning of the transition (2012), or at the end of some several hundred years of the transition?

The clock of intelligent energy indeed must strike if we accept the Ra teachings. It may very well even be a spontaneous event. But does this require the interpretation as "an end of life scenario" somewhere at the beginning of this transition/juncture? Life goes on, in one form or another in any event, but perhaps not as "an end" in one instant, but more as a change sustaining life in one instant to offer transition to all?

Finally, I love the the sign off signature of each post that one participant uses with every posted message that is a Ra quote:
Ra (3:65): "Could your planet polarize towards harmony in one fine, strong ,moment of inspiration? Yes, my friends. It is not probable; but it is ever possible."

This alone resounds with hope, love, and possibility, and is as a result far removed from anything locked, fixed, static, unmoving, or immutable as can be discerned. In this one sentiment alone by Ra all is layed to rest, not as regards life ending as we know it, but as regards possibilities. Possibilities are not fixed by their very definition

Lastly:

"Questioner: I am assuming that it is not necessary for an individual to understand the Law of One to go from the third to the 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.

Questioner: That is a very important point. I used the wrong word. What I meant to say was that I believed that it was not necessary for an entity to be consciously aware of the Law of One to go from the third to the fourth density.

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct."

I don't understand, I don't know, but I do understand and do know that the only ones with the knowledge of knowing know they don't know.

Confused and loving it,

Q