Bring4th

Full Version: Do negative wanderers recapitulate negative philosophy in 3rd density?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Quote:52.9 Questioner: Well, I would just include the question as to why time of harvest is selected by so many Wanderers as time for incarnation?
Ra: I am Ra. There are several reasons for incarnation during harvest. They may be divided by the terms self and other-self.

The overriding reason for the offering of these Brothers and Sisters of Sorrow in incarnative states is the possibility of aiding other-selves by the lightening of the planetary consciousness distortions and the probability of offering catalyst to other-selves which will increase the harvest.

There are two other reasons for choosing this service which have to do with the self.

The Wanderer, if it remembers and dedicates itself to service, will polarize much more rapidly than is possible in the far more etiolated realms of higher-density catalyst.

The final reason is within the mind/body/spirit totality or the social memory complex totality which may judge that an entity or members of a societal entity can make use of third-density catalyst to recapitulate a learning/teaching which is adjudged to be less than perfectly balanced. This especially applies to those entering into and proceeding through sixth density wherein the balance between compassion and wisdom is perfected.

Is this implying that negative wanderers recapitulate negative philosophy (that the wanderer was recently taught) in 3rd density?
The highlighted part of this post, is mostly generated towards positive wanderers, and the rest of it as well.

The negative wanderer of sixth density is very rare, and just as hard as it is to find, as to explain why they return. In my personal opinion sixth density entities of the negative variety is trying to dominate unity. They return because the key to over coming unity in the sixth dimension is thought to be found in third density. Along the same lines of knowledge that opening the eighth level is a passport to the next octave of experience from within third density, not the next density but the next octave. In more focused or lower forms or reasons of coming back for a negative entity, is the potential growth outcome from third density, as well. I also believe there is a practice of fifth dimensional negatives forcing fourth dimensional negatives to wanderer, as kind of a counter to the positive influx of wanderers.
You 100% certain of this? Ra implies that they will split the reasons for incarnating into two categories.

"They may be divided by the terms self and other-self."

They seem to do so when they say "There are two other reasons for choosing this service which have to do with the self." and then proceed by listing two reasons. That is why I assumed that they were explicitly speaking of STS wanderers.
I am 100 percent on nothing but Identity.

I would agree that anyone coming back will be recaputilating lessons. The intent of coming back is what I thought you mostly asked about. To understand that lessons revolve around what one needs to learn, and that intent reveals what one needs to learn.

Also yes I am sure Ra is speaking on why the brothers and sisters of sorrow return. Which are positive entities.

How will such knowledge serve you if I may ask? Do you assume your negative, or someone that you know is? I am just curious, and imply nothing.
I see the confusion, but to serve others is to ultimately serve yourself, when you are all others as well.
K thx. I realize now, that Ra was not referring to STS and STO when they said:
"They may be divided by the terms self and other-self."

I'm writing a full synopsis on the Ra Material to retain it. I am on the wanderer's bit and this part confused me since I misinterpreted that one small sentence. I do not want to put things in the synopsis that I am unsure about.
I see well good luck.
Self - work on 6D balance
Otherself - serve
Of course balancing love and wisdom will still have the 6D serving otherselves in some way, even if just with radiation of their being
Sounds like you unraveled one knot in your thinking.

The MBS Totality is at a level beyond polarity and could be interested in learning lessons which appear on our level to pertain to either one, depending on where it feels its knowledge base is weak.  It desires to leave for succeeding souls the full range of resources they might need to advance along one pathway or another up through the densities.

In your quote, the sentence following the emboldened lines explains why so many wanderers here are from 6d.  In the Ra perspective, this hurly-burly world is prime territory for examining the most advanced questions of balance.  In my view, this also very much involves "self" and others, or others *as* self.  This is to say, an extremely broadened experience of "self."  (I'm putting "self" in quotes because the term implies self-possession, but it doesn't really belong to you.)
I don't see why they wouldn't; the lessons they'd be recapitulating would just be (from their point of view) lessons in self-love and\or dominating others. It's not hard to imagine a 5D negative Wanderer benefit from a life spent as a 'great' dictator in the same basic way a 5D positive would benefit from a life as a great healer.

For that matter, while I'm very reluctant to label individual humans as positive or negative - since there's no way to see into another person's heart - I strongly believe that Ayn Rand was a high-density negative Wanderer who specifically chose to come to Earth to try to spread negative messaging. Just about everything about her philosophies matches up with the negative\STS point of view, starting with her determination that the self\ego is the highest power and going from there. (Even her own backstory feels like something that was 'programmed'.)

And after all, if we didn't have a few high-level negatives running around, life on Earth might start to get boring.
(04-22-2017, 07:23 PM)Infinite Unity Wrote: [ -> ]The highlighted part of this post, is mostly generated towards positive wanderers, and the rest of it as well.

The negative wanderer of sixth density is very rare, and just as hard as it is to find, as to explain why they return. In my personal opinion sixth density entities of the negative variety is trying to dominate unity. They return because the key to over coming unity in the sixth dimension is thought to be found in third density. Along the same lines of knowledge that opening the eighth level is a passport to the next octave of experience from within third density, not the next density but the next octave. In more focused or lower forms or reasons of coming back for a negative entity, is the potential growth outcome from third density, as well. I also believe there is a practice of fifth dimensional negatives forcing fourth dimensional negatives to wanderer, as kind of a counter to the positive influx of wanderers.

So it's like in smash brothers when you kick someone off the ledge that is trying to get back on, and they fall off and explode in a cloud of sparks, right?
You know...I wonder...

If a negative entity teaches sts polarity, is this not a service to another and a decrease in negative polarity?
(04-22-2017, 07:13 PM)DynamicBri Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:52.9 Questioner: Well, I would just include the question as to why time of harvest is selected by so many Wanderers as time for incarnation?

Ra: I am Ra. There are several reasons for incarnation during harvest. They may be divided by the terms self and other-self.

:

The final reason is within the mind/body/spirit totality or the social memory complex totality which may judge that an entity or members of a societal entity can make use of third-density catalyst to recapitulate a learning/teaching which is adjudged to be less than perfectly balanced. This especially applies to those entering into and proceeding through sixth density wherein the balance between compassion and wisdom is perfected.

Wandering might be a way to nudge in the wanderer a better awareness that self and other-self are One. The last paragraph, quoted here, might enhance the Wanderer's balance of compassion and wisdom which also assures, in my mind, that awareness of self and other-self being the same.

I remember when I was a new reader of the LOO how alien was the concept of self and other-self being the same and being the One, but now after the decades I so grok it that my life and my attitude toward others turned completely around. Maybe that's an example of "recapitulation." Smile
(04-24-2017, 09:00 PM)Coordinate_Apotheosis Wrote: [ -> ]If a negative entity teaches sts polarity, is this not a service to another and a decrease in negative polarity?

Ra touches on this at various points, it's one of the key clues that polarity is a distortion. From an objective point of view, service to any is service to all. Largely, the polarity of any given action is based solely in the participants' view of that action. Nearly any activity which could be undertaken could be either STO or STS, just depending on who's doing it and why.

Teaching with the intent of enslaving is a fine example of this. Going back to Ayn Rand, it's true that on one level she seemed to legitimately believe hers was the better path and was attempting to spread knowledge of her self-based philosophies to those who were prepared to learn them. However, from there, she took her most promising students and organized them into a cult-like community in which her word was law and members could be excommunicated for even the slightest of offenses against her. And she (claiming it was ironic) called this group The Collective.

So it starts getting very fuzzy, trying to determine the extent to which she was "legitimately" teaching vs how much of it was specifically so that she could attempt to enslave those who followed her teachings.

And as far as negatives and their polarity go, Ra mentions at various points (such as 7.15 and 87.14) that negative entities, particularly S-M-Cs, tend to suffer from a "spiritual entropy" which is a direct result of the tension between their attempts to work together and their need\desire to remain separate and controlling. As I interpret it, basically, they end up spending a huge amount of energy on seemingly-pointless internal bickering and infighting specifically to keep their polarity levels high, which ends up reducing their ability to work towards common goals.

(Just think of any large corporation with a "toxic" internal culture where workers backstabbing each other or sabotaging each others' projects is common.)
Although I don't remember reading it in the LOO, I determined (subject to revision Wink ) that STSers almost always start out wanting to share their knowledge with others as a favor to them, and then they get attracted to the power. Your post about Rand looks like an example of that idea.
(04-25-2017, 05:12 PM)kycahi Wrote: [ -> ]Although I don't remember reading it in the LOO, I determined (subject to revision Wink ) that STSers almost always start out wanting to share their knowledge with others as a favor to them, and then they get attracted to the power. Your post about Rand looks like an example of that idea.

Well, past a point, it starts becoming more of an issue of a Wanderer's choices while incarnated vs the larger choices and guidelines their higher self made when programming the life. I highly doubt that Rand herself, the 3D entity, consciously decided at the very outset that she would share teachings specifically so she could create a cult of personality around herself. After all, her first mainstream novel ("We The Living") was largely written as a warning about how much life sucked for many people in post-revolutionary Russia in hopes other countries wouldn't follow suit. She didn't REALLY go around the bend until "Atlas Shrugged."

But at the same time, if she was a Wanderer then her higher self would have had a very concrete reason for creating that incarnation. After all, as Ra notes, 5D and 6D negative Wanderers are rare because most higher-density negatives fear the forgetting and uncertainty of the process. They'd need a serious motivation to do it. That would have presumably created a drive for her to get into a position of being able to influence/enslave others, one way or another. And it's worth noting that before she got into novel-writing, she actually attempted a career in Hollywood! (Speaking of influencing people...)

My own guess? I think her higher self was attempting to derail the upcoming 4D positive changeover of Earth by sending, basically, an Avatar of Ego who could more successfully communicate the negative philosophies than any who had come before. Because that is effectively what she did. Previously, what few humans were called to preach negativity did so from the shadows, never gaining widespread fame. But Rand? Regardless of what someone might think of her ideas, it's indisputable that she was one of the single most influential thinkers of the 20th Century.

She mainstreamed selfishness itself, in an era where group-based "collectivist" thought was rapidly taking root. If nothing else, it certainly illustrates what Ra was saying about how a strong ideological push in one direction will necessarily create a counter-movement.
(04-25-2017, 05:12 PM)kycahi Wrote: [ -> ]Although I don't remember reading it in the LOO, I determined (subject to revision Wink ) that STSers almost always start out wanting to share their knowledge with others as a favor to them, and then they get attracted to the power. Your post about Rand looks like an example of that idea.

To me this sounds more like a STO being depolarizing vs a STS seeking to serve otherselves for their sake.

Through life I have seen this happen over and over in so many settings.
It clearly is a risk to take on a leadership role even spiritual leadership in 3D because control, accolades and power seem very often to lead one off its intended path.
The prime directive for 3Ders, besides making The Choice, is to accumulate experience of other selves. Rand got plenty of that in Russia first, then in the U.S. So she might have bent over backwards urging people away from collectivism as a service to them, and didn't intend to be of STS at all. I just don't know enough details about her life.

She definitely was a persuasive fiction writer, and I don't know whether/how she gathered followers of her ideas on selfism. Her popularity as a writer could very well have given her a following. Even now you will hear someone recommend her books.
(04-30-2017, 04:25 PM)kycahi Wrote: [ -> ]The prime directive for 3Ders, besides making The Choice, is to accumulate experience of other selves. Rand got plenty of that in Russia first, then in the U.S. So she might have bent over backwards urging people away from collectivism as a service to them, and didn't intend to be of STS at all. I just don't know enough details about her life.

She definitely was a persuasive fiction writer, and I don't know whether/how she gathered followers of her ideas on selfism. Her popularity as a writer could very well have given her a following. Even now you will hear someone recommend her books.

There are plenty of biographies of her out there from people who spent time with her, if you're interested. Aside (of course) from her official bio, none of them paint a particularly pretty picture of her as a human being. It's one thing to be anti-collectivist, but quite another thing to be so domineering that you expel long-time friends from your circle just because they contradicted you on some minor matter.

Probably one of the most illustrative stories of just how controlling she became later in life came from when she was in a hospital in the 70s. She had just undergone surgery in one of New York's big high-rise hospitals, and was recovering when some of her friends came to visit. She was still loopy on the painkillers, and started talking about the trees outside her window. Except she was on the fifth floor and there were no trees. A couple of her friends who'd been part of the group for years pointed this out, and she excommunicated them on the spot. Even later, when she'd come down off the drugs and agreed there were no trees, she refused to see them ever again because they had dared question her perception of reality.

(One of the stranger quirks of her philosophies is that she basically denied the fallibility of human senses. In turn, this was used as part of the basis for her claim of having solved the is-ought problem.)

Or for that matter, she wrote an entire book devoted to the subject of why her tastes in art and music were the objectively correct tastes in art and music. I'm really not using phrases like "cult of personality" lightly here. And that even carries on to this day. The biggest thing that separates the Ayn Rand Institute - the official continuance of her work - from other Objectivist splinter groups is that the ARI declares Objectivism to be a "closed system." Ie, it consists of the writings and talks of Ayn Rand and nothing else, which can never be amended or reinterpreted or otherwise added onto. Basically, almost like holy writ.
(05-02-2017, 12:59 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-30-2017, 04:25 PM)kycahi Wrote: [ -> ]The prime directive for 3Ders, besides making The Choice, is to accumulate experience of other selves. Rand got plenty of that in Russia first, then in the U.S. So she might have bent over backwards urging people away from collectivism as a service to them, and didn't intend to be of STS at all. I just don't know enough details about her life.

She definitely was a persuasive fiction writer, and I don't know whether/how she gathered followers of her ideas on selfism. Her popularity as a writer could very well have given her a following. Even now you will hear someone recommend her books.

There are plenty of biographies of her out there from people who spent time with her, if you're interested.  Aside (of course) from her official bio, none of them paint a particularly pretty picture of her as a human being.  It's one thing to be anti-collectivist, but quite another thing to be so domineering that you expel long-time friends from your circle just because they contradicted you on some minor matter.

Probably one of the most illustrative stories of just how controlling she became later in life came from when she was in a hospital in the 70s.  She had just undergone surgery in one of New York's big high-rise hospitals, and was recovering when some of her friends came to visit.  She was still loopy on the painkillers, and started talking about the trees outside her window.  Except she was on the fifth floor and there were no trees.  A couple of her friends who'd been part of the group for years pointed this out, and she excommunicated them on the spot.  Even later, when she'd come down off the drugs and agreed there were no trees, she refused to see them ever again because they had dared question her perception of reality.

(One of the stranger quirks of her philosophies is that she basically denied the fallibility of human senses.  In turn, this was used as part of the basis for her claim of having solved the is-ought problem.)

Or for that matter, she wrote an entire book devoted to the subject of why her tastes in art and music were the objectively correct tastes in art and music.  I'm really not using phrases like "cult of personality" lightly here.   And that even carries on to this day.  The biggest thing that separates the Ayn Rand Institute - the official continuance of her work - from other Objectivist splinter groups is that the ARI declares Objectivism to be a "closed system."  Ie, it consists of the writings and talks of Ayn Rand and nothing else, which can never be amended or reinterpreted or otherwise added onto.  Basically, almost like holy writ.

That's one wild lady son!
Do you really think STS isn't collectivist? Ghengis Khan's mongel hordes were total collectivists. Both STS and STO culminate in social memory complexes. BOTH are collectivists just of different structures (one hierarchical and the other distributive). This is why you should not blindly follow collectivist leaders. You have to be aware of their methods.
Yea there collective in the regards that the strongest, use cunning and power. To collect and direct groups. There is an entropic quality of sts energy, very nicely stated by Apeacefulwarrior

The in-fighting or the tug of war like battle between wills, due to the need to absorb power is what causes entropy. So basically a battle over a scarcity. And a red ray blockage. A lot of sts probably have red ray issues.
(05-02-2017, 11:01 AM)Spooner Wrote: [ -> ]Do you really think STS isn't collectivist? Ghengis Khan's mongel hordes were total collectivists. Both STS and STO culminate in social memory complexes. BOTH are collectivists just of different structures (one hierarchical and the other distributive). This is why you should not blindly follow collectivist leaders. You have to be aware of their methods.

Sure. And in fact, one of the more amusing elements of Atlas Shrugged (amusing from a certain 'high level' view anyway) is watching Rand struggle with the problem of how to depict a group of people, her ostensible individualist heroes, who are all acting towards a common goal without actually being a collective. She certainly is walking a tightrope and it's debatable at many points whether the in-book reality of the Strikers' behavior even lives up to their own propaganda.

Like, supposedly, every member of the Strikers is equal and they all live in a sort of anarcho-capitalist retreat where they mutually sustain each other, but buffered through the purely voluntary activity of free trade amongst themselves. Since each is the Ultimate Best at whatever they do (Rand very strongly believed in pyramid-style talent distribution with a "best" and then "all the rest") there's no competition to speak of. There's just one Best Banker, one Best Baker, one Best Railroad Engineer, etc etc. However, the man who organized the whole thing - John Galt - is also the man who invented the sci-fi zero-point energy plants which power the whole thing. So while Galt's Gulch could function without a baker, railroad, etc... if Galt walked away, everything would crumble due to the universal need for his power system. Which makes him the defacto Alpha/leader in a society which claims not to have any, since he's the one with the ability to destroy the whole system if he wanted to.

Was this an accident? Was Rand aware of this contradiction? Was it a "gnostic" hint to particularly advanced readers about aspects of her philosophy she didn't want to state outright? Was it just her latent belief in master\servant relationships leaking in?

It's almost impossible to be certain.
(05-02-2017, 11:45 AM)Infinite Unity Wrote: [ -> ]Yea there collective in the regards that the strongest, use cunning and power. To collect and direct groups. There is an entropic quality of sts energy, very nicely stated by Apeacefulwarrior

The in-fighting or the tug of war like battle between wills, due to the need to absorb power is what causes entropy. So basically a battle over a scarcity. And a red ray blockage. A lot of sts probably have red ray issues.

On the contrary STS have to be exceptionally efficient at using Red, Orange and Yellow ray in order to bypass greenray. If they have red ray issues its only because of the sheer amount of energy they are channeling through these centers. I'm not recommending emulating this but it's important not to minimize the other side. Respect is foundational to defense.
(05-02-2017, 01:06 PM)Spooner Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-02-2017, 11:45 AM)Infinite Unity Wrote: [ -> ]Yea there collective in the regards that the strongest, use cunning and power. To collect and direct groups. There is an entropic quality of sts energy, very nicely stated by Apeacefulwarrior

The in-fighting or the tug of war like battle between wills, due to the need to absorb power is what causes entropy. So basically a battle over a scarcity. And a red ray blockage. A lot of sts probably have red ray issues.

On the contrary STS have to be exceptionally efficient at using Red, Orange and Yellow ray in order to bypass greenray. If they have red ray issues its only because of the sheer amount of energy they are channeling through these centers. I'm not recommending emulating this but it's important not to minimize the other side. Respect is foundational to defense.

Actually, Infinite Unity's right on that one. Ra mentions STSes suffering from "spiritual entropy" a few times in the materials. The tendency of STSes to consistently squabble with each other greatly diminishes their effectiveness in accomplishing goals, specifically because of all the energy they're wasting fighting each other. Intense red-ray energy, in particular, tends to be unfocused, chaotic, and therefore wasteful.
The entropy described is a loss of polarity. This is different than a red-ray distortion.

87.14 Questioner: The Law of Doubling does not work in this way. How much does the power of the social memory complex increase relatively when this single entity is harvested and absorbed into it?
Ra: I am Ra. If one entity in the social memory complex is responsible for this addition to its being, that mind/body/spirit complex will absorb, in linear fashion, the power contained in the, shall we say, recruit. If a sub-group is responsible, the power is then this sub-group’s. Only very rarely is the social memory complex of negative polarity capable of acting totally as one being. The loss of polarity due to this difficulty, to which we have previously referred as a kind of spiritual entropy, is quite large.

Whereas Ra explicitly states negative entities are extremely efficient with red and yellow/orange centers:

47.4 Questioner: Did you say that blue was missing from fourth-density negative?
Ra: I am Ra. Let us clarify further. As we have previously stated, all beings have the potential for all possible vibratory rates. Thus the potential of the green and blue energy center activation is, of course, precisely where it must be in a creation of Love. However, the negatively polarized entity will have achieved harvest due to extremely efficient use of red and yellow/orange, moving directly to the gateway indigo bringing through this intelligent energy channel the instreamings of intelligent infinity.
(04-24-2017, 01:16 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see why they wouldn't; the lessons they'd be recapitulating would just be (from their point of view) lessons in self-love and\or dominating others.  It's not hard to imagine a 5D negative Wanderer benefit from a life spent as a 'great' dictator in the same basic way a 5D positive would benefit from a life as a great healer.

For that matter, while I'm very reluctant to label individual humans as positive or negative - since there's no way to see into another person's heart - I strongly believe that Ayn Rand was a high-density negative Wanderer who specifically chose to come to Earth to try to spread negative messaging.  Just about everything about her philosophies matches up with the negative\STS point of view, starting with her determination that the self\ego is the highest power and going from there.  (Even her own backstory feels like something that was 'programmed'.)

And after all, if we didn't have a few high-level negatives running around, life on Earth might start to get boring.

she was david rockefellers main squeeze.. so all of what you are saying is congruent, plus the Rand corporation was used to study the downed craft from Roswell.

I also think Paul Rand has some blood tie to it somehow, haven't figured that part out.
It's pretty easy to do negative service with the third ray since it's power and control. The uninitiated will seek to control the situation, rather than to control themselves or their inhibitions.

One seeks not to change the flow around them and to find acceptance towards the self and towards others, while the oppositely polarized individual, in a lack of acceptance towards the self will seek to control others out of the lack of acceptance of self or other selves. Go into any average family and find an abusive father who beats their child. Victim Abuser Roles run rampant in this current society, in every culture.