Over the years, I have noticed that there is quite a bit of disagreement on terminology when discussing metaphysical concepts related to the Ra Material (or other channeled material). One of the most common areas I have come across is agreeing upon an adjective or phrase to describe someone who has "awakened" (I am using this as a placeholder for the sake of conversation). 'Awakened' seems to be the most commonly used term to describe someone who has 'awakened to the true nature of reality' (again, placeholder). Of course, there are other terms that are used semi-interchangeably such as "enlightened". Those terms have ambiguous definitions and I've seen complaints that they have the potential to be used in a derogatory fashion to make an awakened person sound superior.
In my current read-through of the material, I ran into this quote:
7.1 Wrote:QUESTIONER: You mentioned that you were a member of the Confederation of Planets. What avenues of service, or types of service, are available to members of the Confederation? Would you describe some of them?
RA: I am Ra. I am assuming that you intend the service which we of the Confederation can offer, rather than the service which is available to our use.
The service available for our offering to those who call us is equivalent to the square of the distortion/need of that calling divided by, or integrated with, the basic Law of One in its distortion indicating the free will of those who are not aware of the unity of creation.
I created this thread in hopes that we can agree on terminology like this so debates/discussion don't involve so much semantical arguments/stipulations. I still plan on using "awakened" or "not awakened" for short hand if discussion demands that term be used a lot. But for me personally, if I use the terms awakened or unawakened, I am referring to those who are or are not aware of the unity of creation.
How does everyone feel about that? Do you think this is more 'politically correct' or 'universal' terminology?
Maybe lets list what current terms are known and used.
Initiate
Initiated
Awakened
Awoken
Enlightened
Illuminated
Aware
And possibly:
Adept
Neophyte
Seraphim (?)
Magician
Alchemist
Perhaps the context dictates the term used?
I tend to shy away from saying someone is either awakened or unawakened, partially do to the fact that in reality, it is not a binary either/or scenario from my perspective, but rather a continuum of understanding with infinite gradations. Thus, one person may be aware of unity to a greater extent than another being, and I really have no legitimate way of quantifying it. To some extent, I get an intuitive sense of it by talking to a given individual or just by being around them, or reading words they wrote, but beyond that I do not know the depth of their understanding of the nature of reality.
I think people with a strong sense of purpose are the closest to what I would consider "awakened". In a sense, they know who they are because they know what type of change they would like to affect or create in their lives. Someone like that may not be aware of unity in a metaphysical sense, yet nevertheless are seemingly guided by strong spiritual purpose. I don't believe there is a universal terminology.
I realize you are talking about something that is possibly different from what people think of as "enlightenment", but I think the word "enlightenment" has become extremely bastardized to the point where I cringe when I hear it nowadays, because I don't think it has any meaning anymore. I see people claim it like a kind of status, and then of course a bunch of people rip into them because of the intimations raised by such a claim. Nobody becomes "enlightened" because enlightenment is the dissolution of self or ego. So the second somebody makes the claim, I become immediately dubious of anything else they say from that point onwards. If such an awakening occurred, they would feel no impulse to proclaim it in the first place.
But I suppose in a general sense, I could see the phrase "spiritually awakened" meaning something generally akin to what you are aiming to define in this thread. If somebody says they are "spiritually awakened" it communicates to me that they have seen beyond the material illusion to a purpose greater than that of simple random entropy implied by a strictly physical world.
It indicates a degree of awareness of unity, at the very least, because after all, what is spirituality if not an awareness of unity?
I realize and agree there is a spectrum. But it makes it extremely cumbersome (sometimes impossible) to discuss certain concepts unless you draw a line somewhere, even if it's imaginary.
A perfect example is the concept of the densities or even colors. In reality, there is a smooth transition between each of the densities / sub-densities, but a line is drawn somewhere for the sake of discussion.
Another issue here is that Ra's response is very much non-explicit. He's expressing service in terms of percentages and proportions. I tend to think even the word "awareness" isn't intended as an either/or. After all, the veil prevents absolutely certain knowledge of Oneness, since those of us on this side of the veil are fundamentally cut off from the Love/Light that most higher-D entities bask in as naturally as we bask in our oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere.
So even that "awareness" is going to be on a sliding scale reflecting the entity's personal intensity of belief.
Like Anagogy, I just don't think there's hard terminology to be found here. Concepts such as awareness, awakening, and enlightenment are necessarily on a spectrum, and it's a spectrum where an absolute "100%" rating is almost certainly not possible during 3D incarnation. Any attempt to draw hard lines is going to naturally tend towards exclusionist thinking (the dreaded "I'm more enlightened than you" argument) and end up perpetuating distortions that Ra was almost certainly trying to help dispel.
But out of curiosity, what concepts do you believe to be impossible to discus without drawing sharp distinctions?
Let's use my example from the OP. How do you discuss the percentage of the population that have to some degree become aware of the unity of the creation? If I am writing a post that refers to that group of people many times, do I really need to literally say "people who to some degree become aware the unity of creation" every single time? Or does it need to be even more lengthy / elaborate: "people who to some degree on a spectrum become aware of the unity of creation". That's a huge mouth-full. Or can I just shorten that to 'awakened' with the understanding that's what I mean, just to make it easier to discuss?
I guess I could say that the first time and put (awakened) at the end of that description as though I was establishing an acronym to be used several times throughout a college essay.
It's really madening to me to frequently argue about semantics because there is no such thing in the universal 'language' of telepathic concept-emotion communication. Because we have allowed that ability to go dormant for the most part in the population, we are stuck with this vocal / verbal communication. So we must agree on the definition of words, otherwise nobody would speak the same language and we would be unable to communicate.
The trick is finding a word that expresses a degree of this quality we're trying to express -- awakeness, enlightenment, etc. -- without the normative implication that it's a better or truer degree than any other.
I really like those of Ra's description of the transparency of the advanced soul's personality. Maybe we could call them "transparents"?
Sometimes the term "sheeple" is used to describe someone who hasn't awakened.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Ra ever shortens the description "those who are not aware of the unity of creation" to one word like 'awakened'. However, I think it is very telling that they even described that segment of the population if it was somehow inherently derogatory/elitist to do so.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's possible to use the term "awakened/unawakened" in a derogatory/elitist manner and have seen it used in such a manner. But I don't think there is any inherent elitism in the term 'awakened', nor is the term 'unawakened' inherently derogatory. We have a choice on how the term is used. It should go without saying since Ra directly referred to that group of people in the quote from the OP, but I would say there is nothing inherently wrong with discussing that segment of the population in the first place.
I also don't find anything wrong with having semantics discussions about the proper use of words like "awakened". I would just appreciate getting them out of the way in this thread so tangential conversations about the semantics of "awakened" don't hinder discussions of other threads with different topics.
@Gemini Wolf, I don't think there is any redeemable qualities of that word. I can only see it being used in a derogatory sense.
I understand where you are coming from Parsons. I think your offering consideration and sensitivity to how language is subject to interpretation. That's why I believe Ra spoke in such a manner, so as to avoid as much distorted interpretations as possible.
For me personally, I would bold this part of the quote...
Quote:7.1 Questioner: You mentioned that you were a member of the Confederation of Planets. What avenues of service, or types of service, are available to members of the Confederation? Would you describe some of them?
Ra: I am Ra. I am assuming that you intend the service which we of the Confederation can offer, rather than the service which is available to our use.
The service available for our offering to those who call us is equivalent to the square of the distortion/need of that calling divided by, or integrated with, the basic Law of One in its distortion indicating the free will of those who are not aware of the unity of creation.
My reasons being that they already seem aware of Dons curiosity in transient, or worldly matters. The previous session hints at this...
Quote:6.25 Questioner: Do any of them come here at this time in spacecraft? In the past, say, thirty years?
Ra: I am Ra. We must state that this information is unimportant. If you will understand this, we feel that the information may be acceptably offered. The Law of One is what we are here to express. However, we will speak upon this subject.
Ra often refers to those who are not aware of the unity of creation as those that are sleeping. So awake/asleep seems fairly informative to me in this context.
But of course users of these words in said context must then agree on what it actually means to be aware of the unity of creation.
For instance, is the belief that we are one enough and if so how deeply the belief that we are one must be seated for it to be considered awareness of the unity of creation?
As for prejudices and distortion of perceptions in general, I think they are inevitable at the moment. We must simply agree on semantics, I do not see anyway around this.
You could always take the lazy route and throw quotations around such terminology.
For example; this post is definitely "helpful" to this discussion
(01-30-2016, 11:04 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]Ra often refers to those who are not aware of the unity of creation as those that are sleeping. So awake/asleep seems fairly informative to me in this context.
Yes I agree, especially when Don asks about the value of media technology...
Quote:34.13 Questioner: What is the general overall effect of television on our society with respect to this catalyst?
Ra: I am Ra. Without ignoring the green-ray attempts of many to communicate via this medium such information, truth, and beauty as may be helpful, we must suggest that the sum effect of this gadget is that of distraction and sleep.
But also, the point of not being aware of the unity of creation, or asleep, is the very purpose of the veil...
Quote:The incarnation pattern of the beginning third-density mind/body/spirit complex begins in darkness, for you may think or consider of your density as one of, as you may say, a sleep and a forgetting. - 21.9
So the context is very important. I shied away from the anonymous youth movement because the notion of being 'awake' implied being privy to the corruption or abuse of power in politics and business. Essentially, if you preferred not to investigate certain conspiracy theories then you were one of the 'sheeple'. The term 'truth seeking' has also been adopted to describe the process of personal/private investigation with regards to political and media rhetoric, as well as trying to discover what remains undisclosed, and why.
Ken Wilber articulates a comprehensive process of personal evolution where 'waking up' is just one aspect of maturation. 1. Growing up. 2. Waking up. 3. Showing up. 4. Cleaning up.
So I deduce from his observations that if growing up is not in partnership with waking up, then such terms as 'awake' or 'asleep' could be used in a derogatory or worldly context.
(01-31-2016, 07:50 AM)Nicholas Wrote: [ -> ]...
But also, the point of not being aware of the unity of creation, or asleep, is the very purpose of the veil...
...
Indeed !
It seems that the process of awakening oneself while down here has some appreciative weight/value for the spirit/mind/body complex. It takes a lot of faith and it signals a powerful intent. Of course if you never act on this knowing, this may not be so. I seem to remember Ra saying that the knowing, if it remained in the brain (rattling around), would not have much value to the whole spirit/mind/body complex.
It's possible that for wanderers this might be different, there being less value per se in this process, since it is more of a remembering than anything else and is probably much easier to accomplish.
To me if we say that what makes us asleep is the veil, then being awake means to perceive yourself that went under a veil.
I would not equate being aware of the nature of reality with being awake. If you are dreaming and notice that there is gravity in your dream, you won't tell yourself that you were awake in the dream but instead aware of an aspect of the reality of the dream. To be considered awake in a dream, you need to remember in some way yourself from outside the dream.
In dreams I have a different personality. I'm more violent.
not to be facetious, because it's an honest question, but what terminology would you use to describe people who 'think they've awakened, but they really haven't".
I ask, because there is a Mind/Body/Spirit Festival in Sydney this week (one I went to about 18 months ago), and I am pretty sure that there are people there who would consider themself "aware and awakened to spiritual truths", and yet something feels lacking or off, in my most objectively-possible estimation.
Or to put it more accurately - they are still focussed on externally-oriented phenomena, rather than the process of inner seeking, which I consider the hallmark of "true awareness and awakening". Of course, there is such a place for things, and it still informs all our lower chakra activities, but it's more a question of focus and heart-orientation imo.
When we look inward, aren't we also looking outward?
Yeah, I know what you're referring to but I'm unsure how to label it other than to call it the first baby steps of seeking. Of course, many people go no deeper than that.
Actually, our Facebook group has become quite active and it seems to be chock full of people at that stage. A very small minority seems to have a firm grasp while the vast majority have very little understanding. It really makes this place look like some Zen temple perched on the side of a snow capped mountain.
Nothing against that group, of course; just merely an observation. Perhaps my perceptions are totally off and I know nothing of the LOO
When I had what some people call an "awakening" I was also calling it an awakening. It lasted a while, and that was years ago.
Now that it's gone and I am "asleep" again, the thought of myself using that term makes me cringe and I do not enjoy reading about it happening to others.
(01-26-2016, 03:40 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]Sometimes the term "sheeple" is used to describe someone who hasn't awakened.
I call them the "repeaters", but for all I know I might be a repeater myself!
