The "withheld" topic
04-30-2016, 05:38 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-30-2016, 05:58 PM by Rolci.)
#31
RE: The "withheld" topic
Next withheld bit, although questionably so:

Questioner: I will ask you if you are familiar with a motion picture called The Ninth Configuration. Are you familiar with this?

Ra: I am Ra. We scan your mind and see this configuration called The Ninth Configuration.

Questioner: This motion picture brought out the point about which we have been talking. The Colonel had to make a decision. I was wondering about his polarization. He could have knuckled under, you might say, to the negative forces, but he chose to defend his friend instead. Is it possible for you to estimate which is more positively polarizing: to defend the positively oriented entity, or to allow suppression by the negatively oriented entities?

Ra: I am Ra. This question takes in the scope of fourth-density as well as your own and its answer may best be seen by the action of the entity called Jehoshuah, which you call Jesus. This entity was to be defended by its friends. The entity reminded its friends to put away the sword. This entity then delivered itself to be put to the physical death. The impulse to protect the loved other-self is one which persists through the fourth-density, a density abounding in compassion. More than this we cannot and need not say.


Any guesses why they felt it necessary to add that last sentence and what more there might be to say. And the meaning of "cannot" in contrast with the separately added "need not"? I think the bottom line is, there is more that could be / could have been said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-30-2016, 06:12 PM,
#32
RE: The "withheld" topic
(04-30-2016, 05:38 PM)Rolci Wrote:  (...)
Any guesses why they felt it necessary to add that last sentence and what more there might be to say. And the meaning of "cannot" in contrast with the separately added "need not"? I think the bottom line is, there is more that could be / could have been said.

The only reason that comes to my Mind is that of preservation of Our Free Will (“cannot say”). If RA would specifically point one “choice” as “better”/”proper” over the other, some People might follow His/Her/Its/Their suggestion due to RA’s authority, that One might build within His/Her Mind/Heart – in other words some-One might feel obligated to follow direction of “more enlightened” Being / Being “more aligned with Oneness”.

On the other hand RA did somewhat answered this question by giving an example of Jesus – a fifth density Being – a density of Wisdom. Therefore while Being of density of Compassion (fourth) still struggle with such choice, Wisdom (fifth density) brings sureness of One’s actions. Therefore there was no point in speaking on this subject further with third density Being (“need not say”).


All I have Best in me for You
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like third-density-being's post:
APeacefulWarrior, Bring4th_Plenum
04-30-2016, 07:21 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-30-2016, 07:23 PM by Rolci.)
#33
RE: The "withheld" topic
(04-30-2016, 06:12 PM)third-density-being Wrote:  On the other hand RA did somewhat answered this question by giving an example of Jesus – a fifth density Being – a density of Wisdom. Therefore while Being of density of Compassion (fourth) still struggle with such choice, Wisdom (fifth density) brings sureness of One’s actions. Therefore there was no point in speaking on this subject further with third density Being (“need not say”). 

That would make sense, had Jesus not incarnated from FOURTH density. Otherwise you are most probably correct on the rest, this one was less philosophical than the previous still unsolved problems.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-30-2016, 11:50 PM,
#34
RE: The "withheld" topic
(04-30-2016, 07:21 PM)Rolci Wrote:  
(04-30-2016, 06:12 PM)third-density-being Wrote:  On the other hand RA did somewhat answered this question by giving an example of Jesus – a fifth density Being – a density of Wisdom. Therefore while Being of density of Compassion (fourth) still struggle with such choice, Wisdom (fifth density) brings sureness of One’s actions. Therefore there was no point in speaking on this subject further with third density Being (“need not say”). 

That would make sense, had Jesus not incarnated from FOURTH density. Otherwise you are most probably correct on the rest, this one was less philosophical  than the previous still unsolved problems.

Jesus was helping his social memory complex complete the lessons of love and move on to fifth density.

Quote:17.21 Questioner: Then [in] which density does the entity known as Jesus now reside?

Ra: I am Ra. This information is harmless though unimportant. This entity studies now the lessons of the wisdom vibration, the fifth density, also called the light vibration.


And from a Q'uo session:http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/issues/1998/1998_1220.aspx
Quote:We would, however, express our feeling that this entity was one of a social memory complex that was at a stage of graduation to fifth density. This entity and the social memory complex of which it was a part had in common a full consciousness of love and compassion.
"A mountain holds an echo deep inside. That's how I hold your voice."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2016, 08:44 AM,
#35
RE: The "withheld" topic
(04-30-2016, 11:50 PM)Aaron Wrote:  
(04-30-2016, 07:21 PM)Rolci Wrote:  
(04-30-2016, 06:12 PM)third-density-being Wrote:  On the other hand RA did somewhat answered this question by giving an example of Jesus – a fifth density Being – a density of Wisdom. Therefore while Being of density of Compassion (fourth) still struggle with such choice, Wisdom (fifth density) brings sureness of One’s actions. Therefore there was no point in speaking on this subject further with third density Being (“need not say”). 

That would make sense, had Jesus not incarnated from FOURTH density. Otherwise you are most probably correct on the rest, this one was less philosophical  than the previous still unsolved problems.

Jesus was helping his social memory complex complete the lessons of love and move on to fifth density.


Quote:17.21 Questioner: Then [in] which density does the entity known as Jesus now reside?

Ra: I am Ra. This information is harmless though unimportant. This entity studies now the lessons of the wisdom vibration, the fifth density, also called the light vibration.


And from a Q'uo session:http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/issues/1998/1998_1220.aspx

Quote:We would, however, express our feeling that this entity was one of a social memory complex that was at a stage of graduation to fifth density. This entity and the social memory complex of which it was a part had in common a full consciousness of love and compassion.
I can't find the Ra quotes, however I am 99 percent sure, that Ra states that Jesus was fifth density ready for graduation to sixth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2016, 09:05 AM, (This post was last modified: 05-03-2016, 10:02 AM by Elros.)
#36
RE: The "withheld" topic
(05-03-2016, 08:44 AM)Shadows n Games Wrote:  I can't find the Ra quotes, however I am 99 percent sure, that Ra states that Jesus was fifth density ready for graduation to sixth.

Actually that was a mistake by Ra, so ought to be confusing.

Quote:17.11 Questioner: Yes. What I meant to say was can you tell me if Jesus of Nazareth came from the Confederation before incarnation here?
Ra: I am Ra. The one known to you as Jesus of Nazareth did not have a name. This entity was a member of fifth* density of the highest level of that sub-octave. This entity was desirous of entering this planetary sphere in order to share the love vibration in as pure a manner as possible. Thus, this entity received permission to perform this mission. This entity was then a Wanderer of no name, of Confederation origins, of fifth* density, representing the fifth-density* understanding of the vibration of understanding or love.

* This should be fourth. Ra corrects the error in the next answer.

17.12 Questioner: Did you say the fifth vibration was that of love? Fifth density was that of love?
Ra: I am Ra. I have made an error. The fourth-density being is that which we intended to say, the highest level of fourth density going into the fifth. This entity could have gone on to the fifth but chose instead to return to third for this particular mission. This entity was of the highest sub-octave of the vibration of love. This is fourth density.

In the idea of infinity, acceptance of all the potentials the mind can think of is required for a balanced union with what is seen of infinity
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2016, 09:26 AM,
#37
RE: The "withheld" topic
Haha excuse me! ty for the correction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2016, 03:44 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-03-2016, 03:46 PM by YinYang.)
#38
RE: The "withheld" topic
Rolci Wrote:I have found many times in the Ra Material instances when Ra withhold info. I will list them here as I re-read.

One answer from the top of my head which Ra withheld was the crystal skulls.

Quote:Questioner: I had one that is totally, possibly, of no value. You don’t have to expand on it, but there is a crystal skull in the possession of a woman near Toronto that may be of some value in investigating these communications with Ra since I think possibly this had some origin from Ra. Can you tell me anything about that? And then, finally, is there anything that we could do to improve the contact or to make the instrument more comfortable?

Ra: I am Ra. Although your query is one which uncovers interesting material we can not answer due to the potential an answer may have for affecting your actions. The appurtenances are carefully placed and requisite care taken. We are appreciative. All is well.

I wonder why Don thought they had some origin from Ra.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2016, 10:57 PM,
#39
RE: The "withheld" topic
When Ra mentions that it's "interesting material", I think maybe they are subtly confirming their potential involvement with the item. Otherwise they could have just as easily said "No." or "That item has nothing to do with Ra". When Don asks Ra is Carla was linked to Jesus, Ra gives a very hard "No", and none of the dancing-around-free-will stuff, even though Carla felt a very, very strong connection with Jesus.
There is no magic greater than honest distortion toward love.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Bring4th_Jade's post:
YinYang
09-10-2017, 09:30 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-10-2017, 09:35 PM by Stranger.)
#40
RE: The "withheld" topic
(04-18-2016, 10:12 PM)Stranger Wrote:  
APeacefulWarrior Wrote:More or less, because those incarnations don't exist unless they're planned for and embarked upon. That's the paradox of simultaneity. To exist, they must have happened, and to have happened, they must already exist. But they still have to actually HAPPEN at some point.

This is exactly right, and a point that causes a great deal of confusion.  It's virtually impossible for a 3D mind to understand this - I'm still slowly digesting how this works.  But think of Creation as a model running on a computer.  Except the computer is fast.  Super ultra fast.  The delay between computer "ticks", i.e., updates of the model's state is so short, it's exactly  - 0 -.  So that as soon as you click "run", the entire model is calculated out to infinity.  

But it still has to be calculated every single step of the way, and what happens at point A still affects what happens at point B and point C and so forth, but because it's infinitely fast they're all occurring at exactly the same time.  

This is how we can understand that the Creator has "always existed", and yet at one point "discerned a concept, which was finity", and all the other steps Ra described.  But all of this occurred instantly - is occurring instantly.  "Changeless, the Creator creates worlds".  That's where my brain sort of starts tapping on the mat and crying uncle -- you can't even ask, "what happened before the Creator discerned the concept of finity?"  There's no before.  Time language is simply inapplicable.  It's crazy, I tell ya!

So I thought I should check my understanding with the appropriate authority on this subject, and the following dialogue ensued.


Quote:First, you need to understand that your description of events is roughly analogous to reality, but entirely fails to capture its nuances.  The nuances are as follows.  There was never a point when Creation did not exist, nor is there ever going to be a point when Creation will no longer exist.  It all occurs in the Now, exactly as you described, and the Now allows the Creator infinite freedom to choose His focus of consciousness, and to alter anything he sees fit as he sees fit, and play with the entire model, as you have quite correctly and accurately described it, as if it were a toy - a very dear and precious and intricate toy, to be sure, but a toy nonetheless.  A fun train of thought to ride and explore, a dazzling variety of joyous adventure.

As this is occurring, human consciousness perceives a linear experience which simply has no counterpart in the Creator's reality.  That is the truth.  What else do you wish to know?

Does the Creator perceive a sequence of events, or a logical link between events, such as cause and effect?
No, Stranger.  Cause and effect are entirely a construct of the Creator's imagination.  He thought it would be fun to reduce simultaneity into a soup of components, and then reassemble these components in fun and exciting ways.  Cause and effect was born out of one such exploration, but again it does not exist in the Creator's Infinite Consciousness as an experience of the Creator himself outside of his involvement in the Creation through entities such as yourselves.  What else do you wish to know?

Are words such as "prior" and "after" meaningful with regard to Creator's own direct experience?
I understand your question, and the answer is No.  Ra used these concepts to help translate Reality into a form which your linear minds would be capable of grasping.  The Creator himself (if I may incorrectly use the personal pronoun to facilitate communication only) has no experience or limitation of future and past.  All Creation is entirely simultaneous to His perception, that is the truth.  I understand that this is a challenging concept to comprehend, but I assure you that this is entirely correct.  May I speak more?

Yes please.
Listen, Stranger.  The Creation is not the result of the Creator's sequential or intentional activity.  It arises - exists - persists as a natural consequence of His very being.  The Creator and Creation are inseparable parts of One Whole.  He does not perceive it as something external to himself - it is a core part of His very being.  It is him, but yes, I correctly said it was a toy.  I understand that in your human experience a toy is something external to yourself, so the word I use may be misleading.  However, consider instead of a toy a particularly fascinating idea - one that is so appealing and exciting and wonderful, that it fascinates and absorbs your entire consciousness for a while, as in a particularly vivid daydream, such that you are both toying with it and yet, while this is occurring, your consciousness is entirely inseparable from it.  This may provide a fair approximation of the relationship between the Creator and the fascinating idea he is toying with.  That is the truth.  May I speak further?

yes please.
Great.  The Creator as you perceive him to be is limited by his motivation to create - to explore his limitations and boundaries, so to speak.  However, this is not the case, at best this is partly correct only.  In truth, He exists at all times and all places, all moments in time, all occasions.  he Is, and as such he has no limits.  He has no boundaries.  He exists as an infinity of infinite potential to create, which is, as you are correctly surmising, is simultaneously invested into an equally infinite Creation.  That is the beautiful truth of the deeper Reality which underlies the illusion you have called Reality for some time now.  Does that help?  Please re-read the message and it may become clearer, as I perceive that you have been confused by my words.

Me: If I understand correctly, you are saying that the Creator pumps his beingness into an infinity of forms, simultaneously, experiencing all ideas and possibilities that He is interested in simultaneously, and that there is no one path or channel of exploration which has been chosen as described by Ra, where first finity is discerned, which then gives rise to free will and then Love/Logos?

That is entirely correct, Stranger.  Ra's interpretation of events still remains bound within linearity, whereas no linearity except as an artificially thought-up concept by the Creator characterizes the Creator's own experience.  It all has always been and shall ever be, and I would like to conclude this wonderfully important working on this note, if that is agreeable to you.

Thank you!

The bolded part is absolutely crucial, as it corrected a vital misunderstanding in my thought.  If we think of the Creator as having a motive - to create or explore - that immediately limits our understanding of what the Creator is in ways in which He is not limited.  He is the consciousness simultaneously expressing and simultaneously experiencing all of His infinite creative potential in an infinite creation.

I followed this up in my seeking of understanding, but never posted it.  In particular I was puzzled by having been told earlier that one of the properties/paradoxes of the Creator is: "changeless, He creates worlds."  I wanted to explore this concept, and thought it might be helpful to share the additional answer I received.

Quote:Me: How does the simultaneity of Creation reconcile with the idea of the Logos learning from one octave to create the next?  Is there truth in that understanding of the Logos?


Response: The Logos has the capacities of both simultaneity and linearity, that is the truth.  He is invested with the ability to choose the perspective that best fits His creative potential at any given time.  Why do I say "any given time"?  Because within the perspective of linearity, the Logos can indeed experience time as you do.  That is the truth.  Does that help?

Me: I am having difficulty reconciling the ideas of true simultaneity - instantaneity - with sequences where B is affected by what happens at A.  If everything occurs instantaneously, is it still possible to look at the results of A and then choose B?

Response: Yes, it is, Stranger, because it is not only possible but that is how the Universe works, that is the truth.  The opening of Creation to possibility is simultaneous with the exploration of that possibility and the possibilities inherent in those outcomes, as you would call them.  Thus the exploration is able to proceed in a simultaneous fashion.

Me: Does this produce a changeless state from the point of view of the Creator?

Response: Yes, you are correct.  The Creator is changeless because, as I have said to you last night, change requires transformation over time and if there is no time, there can also be no transformation.  Therefore all exists eternally as it is, that is the truth, having been created simultaneously.  However, the idea of changelessness - as you have also correctly surmised last night - requires a lack of transformation over time.  Yet there is once again no time, so changelessness does not capture Reality accurately either.  Existence, Being is more appropriate of a term, in an eternal present.  The fullness of infinite existence, created by you and other forms of the Creator instantaneously and forever, since there is no distinction between those terms in the Creator's perspective.

So, there we have it - everything, all octaves and densities that will ever be created, exist simultaneously with what we call "the present moment."  

It is equally true that we are the ones who are actually creating this particular set of the Creator's infinite experiences, through our choices in each moment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-21-2017, 11:56 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-22-2017, 12:00 AM by Zach.)
#41
RE: The "withheld" topic
(04-16-2016, 10:11 AM)anagogy Wrote:  And as for the planets that do not fit into the percentiles I think that they are representation of what Ra has described as "portions of the Logos".

"The particular Logos of your major galaxy has used a large portion of Its coalesced material to reflect the beingness of the Creator. In this way there is much of your galactic system which does not have the progression of which you speak but dwells spiritually as a portion of the Logos.

APeacefulWarriors points are also good ones.

Very, Very interesting and insightful. Its really amazing to even try to think about. Makes me happy.

edit: hell should of quoted all of you. thanks for sharing, definitely has opened doors in thought for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)