Bring4th

Ra Wrote:14.1 Questioner: After going over this morning’s work, I thought it might be helpful to fill in a few things. You said that the second density strives towards the third density which is the density of self-consciousness, or self-awareness. The striving takes place through higher second-density forms being invested by third-density beings. Could you explain what you mean by this?

Ra: I am Ra. Much as you would put on a vestment, so do your third-density beings invest or clothe some second-density beings with self-awareness. This is often done through the opportunity of what you call pets. It has also been done by various other means of investiture. These include many so-called religious practice complexes which personify and send love to various natural second-density beings in their group form.

The LOO teaches us that 2D animals as our pets are imbued with their 3D masters higher energies through their investiture into them, which as a result increase their own progression towards 3D. Here then is my question. If a house pet, such as the dog, is under the iron rule of an individual such as a Genghis Khan-like personality who is soon ready to graduate into STS 4D, might such a dog under such an influence potentially be more attracted towards the STS path when it too enters into 3D for its time to make its choice to polarize between STS vs STO?

It seems unlikely that such a dog raised in such an unloving and potentially cruel and hostile environment, by such an unloving entity, particularly if we exaggerate the hypothesis by suggesting it was also terribly abused and mistreated, if not potentially tormented, might not have profound residuals leftover as attributes, imbued energies, and general rotten negativity, if even only nominally so, thus perhaps nudging it more towards the choice of STS than towards STO, as compared to his alter ego the STO dog raised in a total, complete, loving, and supportive nurturing environment as the pet of a Gandhi-esque-like personality ready to graduate into STO 4D, which might as likely be nudged to STO as its chosen polarity, when either is afforded its opportunity to incarnate into 3D.

Might this raise an interesting if not important philosophical quandary, or at least create a speculative assumption as regards the LOO in general?

We are taught that The One Infinite Creator wished to experience IT-self. We are taught that IT individuated IT-self in order to do so. Granted, STS was only devised later into the game, but nonetheless it was devised in any event. see below:

Ra Wrote:82.29 Questioner: You have stated in a much earlier session that it is necessary to polarize more than 50% service-to-others to be harvestable fourth-density positive. Was this condition the same at the time before the veil?

Ra: I am Ra. This shall be the last full query of this working.

The query is not answered easily, for the concept of service to self did not hold sway previous to what we have been calling the veiling process. The necessity for graduation to fourth density is an ability to use, welcome, and enjoy a certain intensity of the white light of the One Infinite Creator. In your own terms at your space/time nexus this ability may be measured by your previously stated percentages of service.

The One Infinite Creator as a result of IT now individuating IT-self is nonetheless individuating IT-self at this stage at the more outer bands of the galaxy at a percentage basis of STO vs STS. IT re-created the game in a sense by revising it. Let us assume for the thought experiment to keep the STO/STS individuation at a hypothetical 50/50 basis, or any portion thereof chosen for conversation sakes in order the make the question work as viable.
* So that we do not become derailed into peripheral and irrelevant nuances, it is irrelevant to the metaphor or thought experiment that some STS dudes love their dogs, much less if the 50/50 is 70/30 or any derivations thereof. Lets leave the dog between our ears alone and let him fend for himself in these miserable conditions, as much as not getting stuck on nonsense and details, i.e., how much the dog weighs or if it has spots. Lets just run with the question for a moment. Assuming the above as the thought experiment proposed, might STS/STO be preordained, even if only nominally on some level, as opposed to free will in its entirety? In other words, to spin the question the other way in the effort of clarifying it, if the entire creation elected vis-a-vis free will to be STO, then it seems probable that there would have never been a choice to know IT-self more through the STS creation as an experiment as a counter balance to force polarity, as nothing would have been created in the way of the dichotomy upon us now.

Ra Wrote:30.1 Questioner: I am going to make a statement and then let you correct it if I have made any errors. This is the statement: Creation is a single entity or unity. If only a single entity exists, then the only concept of service is the concept of service to self. If this single entity subdivides, then the concept of service of one of its parts to one of its other parts is born. From this springs the equality of service to self or to others. It would seem that as the Logos subdivided, parts would select each orientation. As individualized entities emerge in space/time then I would assume that they have polarity. Is this statement correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This statement is quite perceptive and correct until the final phrase in which we note that the polarities begin to be explored only at the point when a third density entity becomes aware of the possibility of choice between the concept or distortion of service to self or service to others. This marks the end of what you may call the unself-conscious or innocent phase of conscious awareness

Might the Game therefore have been rigged? It seems so by the above statement that parts selected each have orientation. Now, does this simply apply to the heavens and above as regards the higher realms, or also to the earth below and the lower realms, i.e. us...even if only nominally from the outset as regards our choice? Remember, it just feels like we're the ones having the experience to endure the suffering. IT is actually having it through us. IT in fact wills that we as IT experience these opposites in dichotomy (through us) to know IT-self more. Remember always, ITs the one having the experience individuated through us. Could the choice therefore have been somewhat forced or preordained for IT-self as a means of creating the duality IT intended so that IT might know IT-self more?

It seems reasonable to conclude if IT didn't ordain a percentage of STS to STO that the game would otherwise be a failure. It furthermore seems unlikely that the experiment would have been allowed to progress would it not have resulted in the duality IT intended to create. IT needed the differences, the dichotomy, the polarity of extremes. Does the dog then truly have a complete and total free will choice in the matter under the tutelage of a Genghis Khan when it becomes a M/B/S free to choose its polarity , or is this part of the Game rigged to create the existence of STO/STS? Is one dog randomly thrown into the loving environment whilst the other without choice is as randomly thrown to the wretched environment? This supposition would seem too random, if not too unfair? May our paths in choice, as a result, possibly begin nominally before we even enter 3D, but that in 3D we need to polarize in self awareness to the path more leaned into? Or was the dog in said wretched conditions literally just an unlucky son of a b*tch for no reason whatsoever? Seems unlikely. I dunno........

If your reading this mattschryer, I wonder if this fits in at all into your question and post on "Predeterminism, The Law of One, and The Distortion of Free Will?"

...L/L...

~ Q ~

It would seem that the dog does not understand the difference, as there is no polarity in that awareness. When third density is achieved the veil of forgetfulness causes an unbiased choice if a choice is made at all. If anything it is the veil and only the veil that causes STS.

(10-19-2010, 01:54 PM)LsavedSmeD Wrote: [ -> ]It would seem that the dog does not understand the difference, as there is no polarity in that awareness. When third density is achieved the veil of forgetfulness causes an unbiased choice if a choice is made at all. If anything it is the veil and only the veil that causes STS.

Hi LSD,

Thanks for the response. I believe your absolutely correct that the dog doesn't understand the difference. But as for Don's question and Ra's response, might there indeed already be polarity, but perhaps polarity in non self-awareness, i.e. far less polarized?:

Quote:It would seem that as the Logos subdivided, parts would select each orientation. As individualized entities emerge in space/time then I would assume that they have polarity. Is this statement correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This statement is quite perceptive and correct until the final phrase in which we note that the polarities begin to be explored only at the point when a third density entity becomes aware of the possibility of choice between the concept or distortion of service to self or service to others. This marks the end of what you may call the unself-conscious or innocent phase of conscious awareness

This reads to me as if the One Infinite Creator set out to create STS from the outset, and that as such, "individualized entities emerged in space/time" as a result, this with their said polarities already fixed. This being the case, the above further seems to suggest that it is only self-awareness in the polarity preordained that is left to be explored. Does it seem reasonable to conclude that STS ( as much as STO) is preordained on some level, left only to become more self-aware of, which then as a consequence results in its increased polarity in its somewhat fixed polarity to increase as a result?

If so, this does not preclude the ability to switch polarities, but may make it more rare than common?

This is fascinating and somewhat disturbing on some level for me if true. Please challenge this thinking. What do any other members read this to mean?

...L/L

~ Q ~

When i read the subject my first reaction (with an LOL) was "most definitely, the game IS rigged!"

First, the dog thing... We can't teach our pets the lessons of 3D as we are still learning them ourselves. They don't know polarity, but they do observe us don't they? Is their pairing with us the work of their own true selves?

The game is rigged. It is/was only you all along. The joke is on you for you, and you do it to yourself with vigor, love, and much pain....and you like it!

I think it's random. In the quote from session 30, I think Don's assumption that entities have polarity as they emerge is the part that Ra said was incorrect. I think the correct part of Don's statement was this: "I am going to make a statement and then let you correct it if I have made any errors. This is the statement: Creation is a single entity or unity. If only a single entity exists, then the only concept of service is the concept of service to self. If this single entity subdivides, then the concept of service of one of its parts to one of its other parts is born. From this springs the equality of service to self or to others." The rest is less perceptive in that it locates the beginning of polarity too soon, before third density.

Let's step back to what "polarity" may be considered.

To the fundamental basic/aspect of Love.

The reason why there is two choice is because to Love oneself and to Love another both teach about Love. The difference is only the direction that the Love is prevailed towards. 51% STO may be the same in terms of understanding Love (in it's entirety) as 95% STS the only difference is the direction that it is pointed at, radiated outwards like a great light or radiated inwards putting all else around you in the darkness of insignificance.

Ra says an entity who is highly STS can switch polarity much much faster to STO than an entity who is not highly STS or STO. Why? Because the entity that is highly STS is in a high understanding of Love and can direct in the different direction, or better stated - radiate it outwards. Both understandings have to do with the self and other selves therefor a dog does not know the difference but instead does so on survival much like a pack of wolves.

Wolves can be considered STO cause they help each other but STS cause they only do so for the survival of themselves, this is where polarity at this level may be seen as a sinkhole of indifference. The dog is STO cause it wishes to help it's master but STS because it might do so to survive.

Hey Quantum,

I agree with the sentiments thus far from the other members, although I admit it is a very interesting bit of thinking that you give. Light has no meaning without the companion of Dark, and likewise STO means absolutely gibberish if there is not something else to contrast it with. Indeed, much as we here at Bring4th enjoy challenging each other's viewpoints, knowing them to be different, so that we might better understand our own (or change them altogether).

I would have to say that prior to the veiling STO really didn't exist. It would appear to exist from our vantage point now, were we to be able to look backwards in time. But for the entities that existed AT that time, I'm sure they would never have been able to understand the concept. They may have understood the concept of service, possibly. But even that seems to imply otherness, which I am guessing wasn't really on their mental radar screens. I hope I'm communicating this in a lucid fashion...

In short, I don't think the game is really rigged such that some entities will be STS for the purpose of allowing STO to exist, or vicaversa (if I understand your point correctly), because as Ra explained, there was a point where polarity didn't exist (pre-veiling). You could say all was STO then, but this is only an analogy to help us understand. It would be equally true to say it was all STS, given that all consciously knew they were One, and that there was nobody else you could serve. You see where the polarity concept falls apart there. And that's fitting since polarity really IS an illusion from a cosmic viewpoint. Does any of this make sense?

I have some thoughts about your dog scenario example, but I'll save them for now so as to not detract from the main topic, but please let me know and I'll be happy to share

Great topic as always.

Love and Light, to all, ~Lavazza

As always, great feedback. Thank you all. I hope this is good stuff, as I'm still spinning it around. If I may pursue the line of questioning further? Lets go back to basics and see if I have it right:

(10-19-2010, 09:06 PM)seejay21 Wrote: [ -> ]The game is rigged. It is/was only you all along. The joke is on you for you, and you do it to yourself with vigor, love, and much pain....and you like it!

Hi Seejay. Pleased to make your acquaintance. In the end, your right on of course. We do it to very much to ourselves.

(10-19-2010, 09:26 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's random. In the quote from session 30, I think Don's assumption that entities have polarity as they emerge is the part that Ra said was incorrect.

Help me more clearly, with your understanding. I read that Ra stated to Don's question "This statement is quite perceptive and correct ? see below:

Ra Wrote:It would seem that as the Logos subdivided, parts would select each orientation. As individualized entities emerge in space/time then I would assume that they have polarity. Is this statement correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This statement is quite perceptive and correct until the final phrase in which we note that the polarities begin to be explored only at the point when a third density entity becomes aware of the possibility of choice between the concept or distortion of service to self or service to others. This marks the end of what you may call the unself-conscious or innocent phase of conscious awareness

at which point it continues:

Ra Wrote:until the final phrase in which we note that the polarities begin to be explored only at the point when a third density entity becomes aware of the possibility of choice between the concept or distortion of service to self or service to others."

The above seems to suggest that after the subdivisions were given their orientations of polarity that then at the stage of 3D they are no longer innocent in them, as they are now self-aware of them. What do you think?

In other words, as the Logos subdivided, IT selected each orientation (polarity). Does this not seemingly suggest that we did not select our own orientation of polarity entirely of our own volition? If so, this statement seems to indicate that it is far from random. What I then read is that we are relegated to explore this orientation (pre-selected/chosen for us?) later in 3D, presumably as a result that we are incapable of doing so prior to the self-awareness capacity unavailable until in 3D. 3D is the density of self-awareness, not the density of polarization, albeit that in the density of awareness we explore that polarization to increase it. see below:

Ra Wrote:79.27 Questioner: Well I was aware of that. I probably didn’t state the question correctly. It’s a very difficult question to state. I don’t know if it’s worth attempting to continue with but what I meant was when this very first experiment with the veiling process occurred, did it result in service-to-self polarization with the first experiment?

Ra: I am Ra. The early, if we may use this term, Logoi produced service-to-self and service-to-others mind/body/spirit complexes immediately. The harvestability of these entities was not so immediate and thus refinements of the archetypes began apace .

There it is again. The basics seem to indicate that The Logoi produced STS and STO immediately. The harvest however initially was not so immediate, and this is when the veil was introduced and developed, i.e. unconsciousness, not knowing, forgetting, etc. Polarity from the LOGOS subdividing ( i.e. before us) was always there, long long before the veil. The veil was only created to forget so as to increase the polarity previously ordained and chosen, and the harvest thereof of each orientation faster. Again, help me. Am I being too much of a literalist here, or is this what you also read?

βαθμιαίος wrote that Ra Wrote:Creation is a single entity or unity. If only a single entity exists, then the only concept of service is the concept of service to self. If this single entity subdivides, then the concept of service of one of its parts to one of its other parts is born. From this springs the equality of service to self or to others.

I agree that polarity did not exist prior to the Logos subdividing, or that if it did there was only an un-individuated one-self to begin with, and thus only self. But, and here is the key point, upon the Logos in fact subdividing is when it chose its orientations of polarity is what seems to be stated?

(10-19-2010, 10:05 PM)LsavedSmeD Wrote: [ -> ]Both understandings have to do with the self and other selves therefor a dog does not know the difference but instead does so on survival much like a pack of wolves.

Thanks again LSD. Agreed again, the dog does not know the difference. It cant, given it is in the density of non-self-awareness. In other words, as given above, it may be a bad dog, but doesn't know it..yet. But that upon knowing it, i.e. as a M/S/B complex in 3D as a man, it then becomes more aware of itself knowing it is indeed STS. See?

Let me be clear here. I'm shooting in the dark. I'm not particularly fond of what I'm suggesting. In fact, I'm a little ticked to be honest. But....?

What am I reading?

(10-19-2010, 11:08 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]Hey Quantum,

I agree with the sentiments thus far from the other members, although I admit it is a very interesting bit of thinking that you give. Light has no meaning without the companion of Dark, and likewise STO means absolutely gibberish if there is not something else to contrast it with. Indeed, much as we here at Bring4th enjoy challenging each other's viewpoints, knowing them to be different, so that we might better understand our own (or change them altogether).

Hey back at ya Lavazza. Agreed 100%. There aint no up without a down, or a black w/out a white. There must be polarity. And I most certainly concur with the bolded portion above which I've attempted tirelessly to share with another participant as regards being challenged, as opposed to looking only for agreement. Thanks for having fun by the way...and being such a SPORT in joy for the joy alone!!!

But, the Ra quote I'm focusing on not only takes it into account from inception that there must be knives to rocks upon which blades are sharpened upon, but more to the point that IT created the knives and the rocks to begin with as opposites from the start, i.e. orientation, i.e. polarity, versus perhaps the rocks choosing for themselves to be rocks and the knives likewise.

(01-15-1970, 05:39 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]I would have to say that prior to the veiling STO really didn't exist. It would appear to exist from our vantage point now, were we to be able to look backwards in time. But for the entities that existed AT that time, I'm sure they would never have been able to understand the concept. They may have understood the concept of service, possibly. But even that seems to imply otherness, which I am guessing wasn't really on their mental radar screens. I hope I'm communicating this in a lucid fashion...

And this is what I mean about forever returning to basics and challenging one another to remain sharp. I fell asleep too with the veiling process before waking back up to the two quotes found in question above. Polarity from the LOGOS forward was always there. The veil is only about forgetting, as is implicit in the word veil.

(01-15-1970, 05:39 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]In short, I don't think the game is really rigged such that some entities will be STS for the purpose of allowing STO to exist, or vicaversa (if I understand your point correctly), because as Ra explained, there was a point where polarity didn't exist (pre-veiling).

Once again agreed. There was no STO/STS until the Logos subdivided. It presumably subdivided long before we came along. See?

(01-15-1970, 05:39 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]Does any of this make sense?

GOD, NO. It doesn't. I confess none of it does. I don't even know what I'm proposing given I have to recover from what I thought I knew if what I'm now asking may be correct.

(01-15-1970, 05:39 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]I have some thoughts about your dog scenario example, but I'll save them for now so as to not detract from the main topic, but please let me know and I'll be happy to share

I'm always open to your thoughts Dr. "L" .... is this the one about the Poodle and the German Shepard who walk into a bar in 3D?

(01-15-1970, 05:39 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]Great topic as always.

Thanks, I hope it is as well?

(01-15-1970, 05:39 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]Love and Light, to all, ~Lavazza

And to you and all as well. I close befuddled and perplexed,

L and L

~ Q ~

(10-20-2010, 01:16 AM)Quantum Wrote: [ -> ]In other words, as the Logos subdivided, IT selected each orientation (polarity).

Huh? Don said "parts select". Not sure where you're getting the idea that the Logos selects.

(10-20-2010, 01:16 AM)Quantum Wrote: [ -> ]

Ra Wrote:79.27 Questioner: Well I was aware of that. I probably didn’t state the question correctly. It’s a very difficult question to state. I don’t know if it’s worth attempting to continue with but what I meant was when this very first experiment with the veiling process occurred, did it result in service-to-self polarization with the first experiment?

This Q & A is about post-veil conditions.

I'm just saying it may not have a lasting affect on the yellow ray energy center which is the web of connection to other selves, as the yellow ray is not fully activated yet and when activated may not be effected very much to create a biased towards either or.

(10-20-2010, 01:16 AM)Quantum Wrote: [ -> ]In other words, as the Logos subdivided,IT selected each orientation (polarity).

(10-20-2010, 11:21 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Huh? Don said "parts select". Not sure where you're getting the idea that the Logos selects.

Ra quotes Wrote:30.1 Questioner: "It would seem that as the Logos subdivided, parts would select each orientation.

to which Don continues with:

Quote: As individualized entities emerge in space/time then I would assume that they have polarity.

To which Ra responds:

Ra Wrote:I am Ra. This statement is quite perceptive and correct

Thanks for your continuing patience 'βαθμιαίος' with my pursuit. It becomes interesting now. 3D spins on nuance so delicate and so subtle such that they may alas divide oceans between people and their understandings. Thankfully that shall not happen here, but as an example to wit: as the Logos subdivided, did it not at the time of subdivision remain conscious, so to speak, knowing in advance its parts (as part of the whole of It-self) would in fact make certain selections before the fact? It ordained it afterall. It seems reasonable to assume that if It, the Logos, stands outside of time, and is in a space of NO-Time, that it on some level, if not on a full level, not only created the subdivisions, but in fact participated in them completely, and as such did so consciously and in full awareness?

Now, if we wish to stretch either our credulity, or our assumptions that the Logos did not know, we may perhaps go so far as suggesting that the Logos did not know which parts of Itself would select what, but not that certain parts would "indeed" in fact select STS. The fact that It ordained that certain parts of It-self would in fact select STS immediately is potentially indicative to the fact of the Game being pre-ordained, orientation(s) included.

It may be a hard pill to swallow from where we are, locked into our ego structure of identification with our personalities which we either love so dearly, or loath so much, but are seldom if ever very neutral to. However, if I could imagine dividing myself into two teams to know myself better, I as the Logos am removed from the ego of my smaller selves which do not know, which I in fact created to have just exactly the effect created of wrestling against the fact that I am not the Logos, irrespective that I meditate and repeat my mantras intellectually that I am.

My point to the exercise is that it seems to shake out the same as regards the fact that STS was certainly pre-ordained. The similarity to this and another book is astounding and bears worth looking at as a comparison. As a student of all things metaphysical, I remain always open. As such, I am reminded of a scriptural quote from a book that many here are humorously either offended with at it's mere mention, or that have problems with it when it arises. Nonetheless I offer:

Isaiah 45: Wrote:the scripture reads as follows: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, I create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

This is fascinating to say the least, and as such, a passage I dare say few if any Christians are even aware of. Let us be academic enough to at least draw the comparisons versus closing our minds to the fact that the Bible too may be a metaphysical source, and as such, as valid as is any other source, this in spite of the narrow minded political approach some ascribe to it so vehemently, and that is in their mind laughably more an STS manual, than very simply just another distorted text, as is every single other thing in 3D.

My point is STS was created/pre-ordained, conceived of before the fact, as in premeditated, rather than as an accident of random evolution or fate. As such the Logos knew what it was doing. It is clear that It must have pre-ordianed that certain parts of It-self would select STS, even if one were to argue that it chose not to know what parts. One might reasonably argue, if this were important, that even if the Logos didn't know which parts would make which selection, that as a result of upon it occurring "immediately" on It's subdivisions, that it is a moot point.

(10-20-2010, 01:16 AM)Quantum Wrote: [ -> ]79.27 Questioner: Well I was aware of that. I probably didn’t state the question correctly. It’s a very difficult question to state. I don’t know if it’s worth attempting to continue with but what I meant was when this very first experiment with the veiling process occurred, did it result in service-to-self polarization with the first experiment?

(10-20-2010, 11:21 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]This Q & A is about post-veil conditions.

Yes, exactly. There appeared to be assumptions by participants that prior to the veil that there was no STS. The veil came after STS, not that STS was created as a result of the veil. The Ra answer to the above question appears below:

Ra Wrote:Ra: I am Ra. The early,( i.e. before the veil) if we may use this term, Logoi produced service-to-self and service-to-others mind/body/spirit complexes immediately.

Thank each of you for remaining with this. I will close by stating that I wrestled at first upon learning in the LOO that one may as successfully traverse upon the path of STS to "Kiss the face of God," if you will, as one does upon the path of STO. Having cleared that hurdle in my mind, it now seems no more difficult to assume that the Logos preordained the entire game from the outset to accomplish just exactly this. What is the difference between the two concepts in belief or credulity?

If what I am reading or proposing as a thought experiment or a fact is correct, it may ultimately not make a whit of difference, as it shakes out the same in the end in any event. The One Infinite Creator is experiencing IT-self, whether consciously, which is what I propose, or unconsciously, which seems more unlikely. I propose the answer may potentially lie in the fact that many of us on the STO path still wrestle with STS irrespective of how far we may have come into the fold of LOO concepts. If it is not about STO vs STS, then perhaps it is instead about our psychology of ego alone. We wish very much to believe we are fully in charge and fully sovereign of ourselves. What if we are not ourselves? What if we are indeed the One Infinite Creator who made up IT's mind before we think we did? We are it pretending to be uncognizant of the fact that we are playing on opposite teams that in fact do not truly exist.

As much as we are, we never were, as IT always is as us in being.

~ Q ~

So if I decide right now to serve only myself am I tricking the predetermined outcome? Or simply changing it.

If there is not time in the Creators boundless awareness, then me making a choice will not cause randomness but will cause foreseen changes in the future that are already known. I'm trying to explain this the best I can - words truly limit thought.

Imagine your life is a string, the beginning of the string is birth the end death (whatever that may be). In time/space you would be able to see the begining and the end of the string with everything in between. In space time you are aware of the current locus or point of the string that you are currently experiencing - IF at this point or locus you chose to do something different then was pre-determined you would change the end of the string.

The Creator or you in time space plan out this string but are sure that it is elastic or interchangeable because of choice or Free Will - you ALWAYS know the outcome of this string because you can see the end of it, even if the string changes because of some event you still can see the end of this string in time/space. (We could say you or your higher self is in time/space knowing the string or grand picture)

Now does this mean that the I in time/space know what the out come of my life is at all times, but the outcome is changing or transforming constantly with each choice in space/time and thus me seeing only through a dim light in the curtain that is the veil feeling as though as nothing is predetermined even though it is?


If I chose to go STS the Creator would have already known I was going to do that by looking at the end of the string, but if Free Will truly exists then the end of the string is always changing - even though the end still is known.


I would also like to state that the using of 'end' is an ineloquent usage, but instead we could say the 'outcome'.


It's a paradox, like looking at a paper on the computer before printing it. I know what's going to print out at all times, if something changes on the paper I know the outcome that will be printed it's predetermined but can change. Does this make sense?

(10-20-2010, 03:08 PM)LsavedSmeD Wrote: [ -> ]Does this make sense?

Actually it very much does LSD. But don't tell Lavazza I said so, given this is a complete contradiction to my previous response to him with regard to the same question he posed in post # 8 above. I changed my mind you see. But it might have been predetermined that I would.

All seriousness aside, your spot on. Its the original question as a result: Is the Game Rigged? Mind you, rigged generally carries the connotation of being tricked, bamboozled, taken for a ride. It is an aphorism in this case meant only to raise questions. How may ONE after all take ONESELF for a ride if ONE knows where ONE is going? Perhaps ONE takes something akin to the analogy of an INFINITY drug through thought alone. IT chooses to forget, just so that it may? IT forgets through us. But IT knows the outcome when IT remembers again. If IT will coalesce into IT-self at the final heartbeat, then there is no winning, there is no loosing. All is well, as there is only IT. Even 1D and 2D that remained so for millions of years is no less than Ra, if everything simply coalesces as and into ONE.

The same thought seems to be affirmed picking up a Ra quote from βαθμιαίος on the thread: Why would the Creator elect to create suffering for ITself?

Ra Wrote:At the seventh level or dimension, we shall, if our humble efforts are sufficient, become one with all, thus having no memory, no identity, no past or future, but existing in the all.

All simply melts into the ONE that we never left to begin with. "IT" presumably remembers everything Infinitely, while we, to the point, which never were, melt into "IT" loosing our identities and individual memories once again, but that "IT" nonetheless retains. "IT" remembers. We forget. We never were anything other than "IT's" parts subdivided now joined whole.

It seems reasonable to conclude that IT may have as a result ordained certain aspects of IT-self to play for one team, while also the other in simultaneity. Does this preclude one orientation from switching? No, is the reasonable conclusion, as it wouldn't matter in any event. IT is exploring, reaching, learning to know IT-self more. IT would learn as much from switching one of IT's parts as in continuing not to switch. IT can't loose. Its the only game in town.

Because this may be be junk philosophy and speculation, or perhaps an interesting insight, lets each continue to maintain our positions a bit longer with this before yeidling or moving on to see where we go.

In other words, rip it to shreds please, while I and perhaps another team member(s) that sees what I think might be there, attempt to piece it together again.

~ Q ~

Quote:

(10-20-2010, 01:16 AM)Quantum bolded/underlined what Ra Wrote: [ -> ]79.27 Questioner: Well I was aware of that. I probably didn’t state the question correctly. It’s a very difficult question to state. I don’t know if it’s worth attempting to continue with but what I meant was when this very first experiment with the veiling process occurred, did it result in service-to-self polarization with the first experiment?

(10-20-2010, 11:21 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]This Q & A is about post-veil conditions.

Yes, exactly. There appeared to be assumptions by participants that prior to the veil that there was no STS. The veil came after STS, not that STS was created as a result of the veil. The Ra answer to the above question appears below:

Quantum wrote that Ra Wrote:Ra: I am Ra. The early,( i.e. before the veil) if we may use this term, Logoi produced service-to-self and service-to-others mind/body/spirit complexes immediately.

Just to clarify the interpretation of this quote, notice that Ra says "mind/body/spirit complexes", and remember that mind/body/spirits only became complex AFTER the veil. I believe that this quote, when they say "The early...Logoi..", as regards the question asked of them, indicates that they were talking about the earliest of the POST-veil Logoi, not the earliest Logoi which existed before the veil.

/:idea:

(10-20-2010, 02:03 PM)Quantum Wrote: [ -> ]

Ra quotes Wrote:30.1 Questioner: "It would seem that as the Logos subdivided, parts would select each orientation.

to which Don continues with:

Quote: As individualized entities emerge in space/time then I would assume that they have polarity.

To which Ra responds:

Ra Wrote:I am Ra. This statement is quite perceptive and correct

You left out the last part, "until the final phrase in which we note that the polarities begin to be explored only at the point when a third density entity becomes aware of the possibility of choice between the concept or distortion of service to self or service to others."

In other words, individualized entities don't have polarity as they emerge in space/time.

I agree with Poffo about the other quote (79.27). Both the question and the answer, I believe, are referring to post-veil conditions. The saga of polarity, Ra says, was unimagined before the veil (77.19).

Hello again Quantum,

I believe we could say appropriately that predetermined and set-in-stone are different. Predetermined meaning on the outside or in the bigger picture we can see what are actions are going to end up doing, but the actions in between can always change thus changing the outcome - it's predetermined but yet flexible.


Free Will does exist, it's the threshold, existing even before the veil.

The only reason the veil was set in place was because of the fact that entities did not understand and/or did not even desire to do anything whatsoever; such as executing their full potential of Free Will, because obviously, they were so content that catalysts was very little or inefficient.

(10-20-2010, 09:36 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]You left out the last part, "until the final phrase in which we note that the polarities begin to be explored only at the point when a third density entity becomes aware of the possibility of choice between the concept or distortion of service to self or service to others."

In other words, individualized entities don't have polarity as they emerge in space/time.

I apologize if it seems we repeat ourselves, but I read Ra to state explicitly that Don is very much correct when he asks by making the statement that as the Logos subdivided, parts select each orientation ( i.e. polarity), and as such that individualized entities do indeed emerge in space/time with these orientations, to which Ra answers he is quite perceptive and correct?
Here once again is the full quote as provided originally in my posts above # 1, 3, and 8.

Ra Wrote:It would seem that as the Logos subdivided, parts would select each orientation. As individualized entities emerge in space/time then I would assume that they have polarity. Is this statement correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This statement is quite perceptive and correct until the final phrase in which we note that the polarities begin to be explored only at the point when a third density entity becomes aware of the possibility of choice between the concept or distortion of service to self or service to others. This marks the end of what you may call the unself-conscious or innocent phase of conscious awareness

What I read is that either the Logos selected these orientations before the fact, or at least simultaneously as the entities in question immediately emerged in space/time. I further then read/interpret the full significance of 3D is self-awareness, at which point 3D marks the end of innocence or un-self consciousness, where in 3D the pre-existing bias or fixed polarity is then explored one against the other, i.e. the possibility of choice between the concept or distortion of service to self or service to others. Does this not suggest that polarity was indeed present before 3D in unexplored and in unself-consciousness states (i,e, 1D/2D) given that it (polarity) is stated to have emerged immediately in space/time. Polarity could not be explored in unself-consciousness in spite of the fact that it was present immediately, as the result of the fact that nothing in consciousness can be explored w/out the capacity for self-awareness first, but is then indisputably designed to be explored in 3D. The immediate emergence of entities is certainly not restricted to 3D given that entities of consciousness are unquestionably present in 1D, and without doubt present in body and consciousness in 2D, thus with polarity in space/time in 1D or 2D which certainly also exist in space time. Choice/free will however is present, in that the entity may switch, or go deeper, or simply waffle by choice to remain stuck in the sinkhole of indifference. Perhaps polarity as a tool needs a kick-start in the game, if even only as a bias, if not in fact fixed, and as an investiture given by the Logos to know itself more?

Imagine that there were no bias for either orientation selected immediately as stated for a moment. Might the sinkhole of indifference be more likened to a black hole of indifference? Were there no bias or fixed state, would then the veil created to speed up the process not be slightly self-defeating to slow it down as well, thus in a sense neutralizing it?

(10-20-2010, 09:36 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with Poffo about the other quote (79.27). Both the question and the answer, I believe, are referring to post-veil conditions. The saga of polarity, Ra says, was unimagined before the veil (77.19).

I also wrestled with this before posting the thread and was going to bring it up. Your comment therefore Poffo does potentially indeed bring a different spin to it. See below my response:

77.24 Wrote:Questioner: Now, there are several general concepts that I would like to be sure that we have clear before going into this process and I will certainly adhere to the requests that you have just stated. When our Logos designed this particular evolution of experience It decided to use a system of which we spoke allowing for polarization through total free will. How is this different from the Logos that does not do this? I see the Logos creating the possibility of increase in vibration through the densities. How are the densities provided for and set by the Logos, if you can answer this?

Ra:Let us observe your second density. Many come more rapidly to third density than others not because of an innate efficiency of catalysis but because of unusual opportunities for investment. In just such a way those of fourth density may invest third, those of fifth density may invest fourth. When fifth density has been obtained the process takes upon itself a momentum based upon the characteristics of wisdom when applied to circumstance. The Logos Itself, then, in these instances provides investment opportunities, if you wish to use that term. May we enquire if there are any brief queries at this space/time?

And there it is again, this more than a few times now. Does this Ra quote above not seem to further suggest and support the previous quote that the Logoi in fact invested immediately STS into the emergence of entities in space/time. If so, then the veil point for the purposes of this discussion as regards whether polarity was nudged, biased, or fixed as pre-existing is moot with respect to our search. The veil in 3D is moot as regards polarity for this discussion, while paramount as regards the speeding up of the process of harvest. Polarity it seems is being established as pre-existent to the veil, such that the veil is not a marker for the timing of polarity. Polarity pre-exitsed the veil, though not yet as refined. What was refined was the veil, which increased the chance to speed up polarity, but which did not manifest polarity. See below:

Quote:78.13 Questioner: Then we have, at the beginning of this galactic evolution, an archetypical mind that is the product of the previous octave which this galaxy then used as and acts upon under the first distortion so as to allow for what we experience as polarity. Was there any concept of polarity carried through from the previous octave in the sense of service-to-others or service-to-self polarity?
Ra: I am Ra. There was polarity in the sense of the mover and the moved. There was no polarity in the sense of service-to-self and service-to-others.

So, we return again to polarity pre-existing the veil, though certainly not as refined as now. That it was pre-existent is clear with the early Logoi. May we now suggest that it was simply refined by the later Logoi creating STO/STS? This quote of the earlier Logoi weaved together with the previous quote of the later Logoi which potentially nonetheless invest themselves into the newer more refined ceation of STO/STS vis-a-vis polarity more refined may seem to suggest that the later Logoi partake in refinement of the veil as regards also potentially the investiture of STS (as well as STO) while still at the immediate emergence of entities into space/time, these presumably in 1D and almost certainly in 2D, and that only in 3D may the entity further along the evolutionary path of its growth process begin to explore what was otherwise already present and given to it as a, let us say, pre-existing bias, if not a fixed state, this as a result of free will allowing the said entity to make a switch in its bias vs fixed state if so desired.

Thank you all for continuing this thread. I invite more discussion and more challenge, while continuing to repeat, I am taking a position only for the express purposes of exploring what may be a consideration, versus a committed attitude needing to be defended. I almost feel as if I need to apologize for enjoying the forum, this for having been described in previous threads and posts as engaging in sport. Sport, joy, enthusiasm, passion, etc, would all seem to be synonyms for one and the same, to not only strengthen ones skills, but also ones understanding. If it sounds as if I'm apologizing, its only for the purpose of expressing my nature more clearly for any that may share the same sentiments as regards my describe attitude. I hope I may enjoy myself, as is my nature and desire, and equally invite all to participate in the fun as a sport as well. As the self confessed hedonist and play-baby I am, I've always excelled more in anything when I'm having fun.

...L/L

~ Q ~

Are you saying that polarity in the sense of STO/STS pre-existed the veil? That seems to contradict Ra's statements on the matter.

If you're saying that Logoi can and do offer a bias to third-density entities in their care, that is definitely supported in the Ra information. If you're then expanding that to say that first- and second-density entities may be aware of that bias and start to choose one way or the other, that seems to be contradicted by Ra's statement that "the polarities begin to be explored only at the point when a third density entity becomes aware of the possibility of choice between the concept or distortion of service to self or service to others."

However, I will acknowledge that in the relistening project there was a quote uncovered which does suggest that the cat Gandalf was able to enjoy a love relationship with another cat because both were unusually third-density oriented.

http://wiki.lawofone.info/index.php/Ra_Session_30

Quote:Questioner: I was wondering if the male cat, Gandalf, has benefited by that mechanism in some way or by other mechanisms in increasing spiritual potential or understanding.

Ra: I am Ra. We examine this information and find it harmless. The second density entity, sound vibration Gandalf, is a rare sample of its species due first to previous individualization, secondly due to a great amount of investment in this particular life experience. This is the greatest catalyst in this entity’s progress. It is very unusual, as we have said. However, the experiences of bisexual reproduction which were of the nature of the entity Gandalf were to a small extent of spiritual benefit due to an unusual relationship with another entity, this also what you call a cat. This entity also being of an unusually third-density orientation or investment from previous life experiences. Thus the formation of what could be seen to be recognizably love did exist in this relationship.

(10-20-2010, 04:27 PM)Quantum Wrote: [ -> ]Actually it very much does LSD. But don't tell Lavazza I said so, given this is a complete contradiction to my previous response to him with regard to the same question he posed in post # 8 above. I changed my mind you see. But it might have been predetermined that I would.

This is terrific! LSD, if you wouldn't mind following up all of my posts then perhaps I can cut my typing time in half

I wanted to drop in and quickly attempt an explanation for my lack of follow-ups here due to my incarnation's life plan being predetermined (!) to become more busy that usual this week, and thus abridge my free will in preventing me from participating more in this great discussion. That rascal that is my higher self seems to have it in for me. Do know however that I read the posts here when I can (as with most other threads too) and am enjoying the banter quite a bit. Please do carry on, as I cheer from the sidelines. (I'm the guy wearing the beer-can hat and Infinity jersey yelling incoherently about polarizing towards harmony in one fine, strong, moment of inspiration.

Your friend in L&L, ~Lavazza

(10-21-2010, 07:59 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Are you saying that polarity in the sense of STO/STS pre-existed the veil? That seems to contradict Ra's statements on the matter.

I'm afraid I have to correct myself here, because I just re-discovered this exchange:

Quote:93.4 Questioner: Now, if I understand correctly, prior to the veiling process the electrical polarities, the polarities of radiation and absorption, all existed in some part of the creation, but the service-to-others/service-to-self polarity with which we are familiar had not evolved and only showed up after the veiling process as an addition to the list of possible polarities in the creation. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. No.

93.5 Questioner: Would you correct me on that?

Ra: I am Ra. The description of polarity as service-to-self and service-to-others, from the beginning of our creation, dwelt within the architecture of the primal Logos. Before the veiling process the impact of actions taken by mind/body/spirits upon their consciousness was not palpable to a significant enough degree to allow the expression of this polarity to be significantly useful. Over the period of what you would call time this expression of polarity did indeed work to alter the biases of mind/body/spirits so that they might eventually be harvested. The veiling process made the polarity far more effective.

Quantum, does that help your argument?

Quote:Ra: I am Ra. The description of polarity as service-to-self and service-to-others, from the beginning of our creation, dwelt within the architecture of the primal Logos. Before the veiling process the impact of actions taken by mind/body/spirits upon their consciousness was not palpable to a significant enough degree to allow the expression of this polarity to be significantly useful. Over the period of what you would call time this expression of polarity did indeed work to alter the biases of mind/body/spirits so that they might eventually be harvested. The veiling process made the polarity far more effective.

I think this statement can be taken to reconcile some of the seeming contradictions. In an earlier quote is was pointed out that Ra says that STS and STO were created immediately. In Session 77 more detail is given on the nature of free will and STO/ STS polarities. In 77.11 Ra declines to answer a question due to the fact that our particular logos is not specified. He later explains that the first distortion is that of the free will of the Logos, initially it was not extended down past the sub-logoi, however, in reading and re-reading all these quotes and exploring the rest of the context of each session, I have come to the conclusion that in the plan of our logos, STO and STS potential for polarity exists in entities from time of creation, prior to veiling, both sides of the polarity still existed-(there is no polarity without polarizing forces after all).

Going further back, and beyond our particular logos, a polarity still exists, though it is a polarity in the sense of poles of a magnet, without ethical or moral judgement of right or wrong that we must attach to things as part of third density incarnation.

Quote:93.3 Questioner: Thank you. You have stated previously that the foundation of our present illusion is the concept of polarity. I would like to ask, since we have defined the two polarities as service-to-others and service-to-self, is there a more complete or eloquent or enlightening definition of these polarities or any more information that we don’t have at this time that you could give on the two ends of the poles that would give us a better insight into the nature of polarity itself?

Ra: I am Ra. It is unlikely that there is a more pithy or eloquent description of the polarities of third density than service-to-others and service-to-self due to the nature of the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions towards perceiving concepts relating to philosophy in terms of ethics or activity. However, we might consider the polarities using slightly variant terms. In this way a possible enrichment of insight might be achieved for some.

One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

Quote:78.8 Questioner: Thank you. I am going to go back to an earlier time, if you could call it that, in evolution to try to establish a very fundamental base for some of the concepts that seem to be the foundation of everything that we experience so that we can more fully examine the basis of our evolution.

I am guessing that in our Milky Way Galaxy (the major galaxy with billions of stars) that the progress of evolution was from the center outward toward the rim and that in the early evolution of this galaxy the first distortion was not extended down past the sub-Logos simply because it was not thought of or conceived of and that this extension of the first distortion, which created polarization, was something that occurred in what we would call a later time as the evolution progressed outward from the center of the galaxy. Am I in any way correct in this statement?

Ra: I am Ra. You are correct.

Perhaps what Ra is telling us is that polarity exists; the way I understand it is that only intelligent infinity in its purest form is without polarity, the first distortion is the free will of the logos in the image of the creator, striving to know itself more completely.

Quote:78.18 Questioner: So the original evolution then was planned by the Logos but the first distortion was not extended to the product. At some point this first distortion was extended and the first service-to-self polarity emerged. Is this correct and if so, could you tell me the history of this process of emergence?

Ra: I am Ra. As proem let me state that the Logoi always conceived of themselves as offering free will to the sub-Logoi in their care. The sub-Logoi had freedom to experience and experiment with consciousness, the experiences of the body, and the illumination of the spirit. That having been said, we shall speak to the point of your query.

The first Logos to instill what you now see as free will, in the full sense, in its sub-Logoi came to this creation due to contemplation in depth of the concepts or possibilities of conceptualizations of what we have called the significators. The Logos posited the possibility of the mind, the body, and the spirit as being complex. In order for the significator to be what it is not, it then must be granted the free will of the Creator. This set in motion a quite lengthy, in your terms, series of Logos’s improving or distilling this seed thought. The key was the significator becoming a complex.

78.19 Questioner: Then our particular Logos, when it created Its own particular creation, was at some point far down the evolutionary spiral of the experiment with the significator becoming what it was not and, therefore, I am assuming, was primarily concerned in designing the archetypes in such a way that they would create the acceleration of this polarization. Is this in any way correct?

Ra: I am Ra. We would only comment briefly. It is generally correct. You may fruitfully view each Logos and its design as the Creator experiencing Itself. The seed concept of the significator being a complex introduces two things: firstly, the Creator against Creator in one sub-Logos in what you may call dynamic tension; secondly, the concept of free will, once having been made fuller by its extension into the sub-Logoi known as mind/body/spirit complexes, creates and re-creates and continues to create as a function of its very nature.

So in the really big picture, the polarity in the architecture of the logos eventually would result in harvest of entities, however catalyst was lacking and the process was lengthy and without great significance to entities as the conscious and unconscious minds were known to each other and the mystery created by the veil was non existent.

As the experiments continued and the seed concepts became more refined, the seed thought of the significator and free will extended beyond sub-logoi led to the seed concept of the significator as a complex and the veiling necessary to refine the conditions for Choice.

As Session 77 addresses, logoi have free will and some chose not to create entities of both polarities, earlier in galactic evolution, though those logoi created only STO entities - this scenario can only occur in the absence of free extended past the sub-logoi.

The way I understand it is that early logoi is referring to early logoi after the seed thought of significator and the initial veiling. STO/STS polarized spirit/mind/body/complexes were created immediately, and here :

Quote:79.30 Questioner: Would The Choice exist at this point during the creation of the first service-to-self polarity?
Ra: I am Ra. Implicit in the veiling or separation of two archetypes is the concept of choice. The refinements to this concept took many experiences.

Ra clearly states that the Choice existed at the creation of the first STS polarized mind/body/spirit complex. So the first veiled complexes were created in a polarized state of free will, and catalyst was stronger but not as refined as the logos which we are experiencing. The refinement we experience I think is that we enter third density in a non-polarized state, and our polarization is forged by fire during rich third density experience.

Quote:77.17 Questioner: Would it be possible for this work of our density to be performed if all of the sub-Logoi chose the same polarity in any particular expression or evolution of a Logos? Let us make the assumption that our sun created nothing but, through the first distortion, positive polarity. There was no product except positive polarity. Would work then be done in fourth density and higher as a function of only the positive polarization evolving from the original creation of our sub-Logos?
Ra: I am Ra. Elements of this query illustrate the reason I was unable to answer your previous question without knowledge of the Logos involved. To turn to your question, there were Logoi which chose to set the plan for the activation of mind/body/spirit complexes through each true color body without recourse to the prior application of free will. It is, to our knowledge, only in an absence of free will that the conditions of which you speak obtain. In such a procession of densities you find an extraordinarily long, as you measure time, third-density; likewise, fourth density. Then, as the entities begin to see the Creator, there is a very rapid, as you measure time, procession towards the eighth density. This is due to the fact that one who knows not, cares not.

Let us illustrate by observing the relative harmony and unchanging quality of existence in one of your, as you call it, primitive tribes. The entities have the concepts of lawful and taboo, but the law is inexorable and all events occur as predestined. There is no concept of right and wrong, good or bad. It is a culture in monochrome. In this context you may see the one you call Lucifer as the true light-bringer in that the knowledge of good and evil both precipitated the mind/body/spirits of this Logos from the Edenic conditions of constant contentment and also provided the impetus to move, to work and to learn.

Those Logoi whose creations have been set up without free will have not, in the feeling of those Logoi, given the Creator the quality and variety of experience of Itself as have those Logoi which have incorporated free will as paramount. Thusly you find those Logoi moving through the timeless states at what you would see as a later space/time to choose the free will character when elucidating the foundations of each Logos.

77.18 Questioner: I guess, under the first distortion, it was the free will of the Logos to choose to evolve without free will. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

77.19 Questioner: Do the Logoi that choose this type of evolution choose both the service-to-self and the service-to-others path for different Logoi, or do they choose just one of the paths?
Ra: I am Ra. Those, what you would call, early Logoi which chose lack of free will foundations, to all extents with no exceptions, founded Logoi of the service-to-others path. The, shall we say, saga of polarity, its consequences and limits, were unimagined until experienced.

77.20 Questioner: In other words you are saying that originally the Logoi that did not choose this free will path did not choose it simply because they had not conceived of it and that later Logoi, extending the first distortion farther down through their evolution, experienced it as an outcropping or growth from that extension of the first distortion. Am I correct in saying that?
Ra: I am Ra. Yes.

77.21 Questioner: Then did this particular Logos that we experience plan for this polarity and know all about it prior to its plan? I suspect that this is what happened.
Ra: I am Ra. This is quite correct.

77.22 Questioner: In that case, as a Logos, you would have an advantage of selecting the form of acceleration, you might say, of spiritual evolution by planning what we call the major archetypical philosophical foundations and planning these as a function of the polarity that would be gained in third density. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is exquisitely correct.

In no way do I think we are preordained by logoi to progress in a certain polarity, if anything, our present incarnations at this late stage in the cycle would more likely be preordained by our higher selves, our purposes and preparations for being here at this time, and the soul contracts we entered into before this incarnation. Though we may not experience free will as fully manifest in third density incarnation, that fact that we are here now is testament to it, and through studying the Ra material, I think we can be sure that we made this Choice.

Thank you for this comprehensive and, I believe, accurate summary.

(10-26-2010, 11:11 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for this comprehensive and, I believe, accurate summary.

And I thank you as well

Excellent commentary, and very helpful. My thanks to you as well,

~Lavazza

Hey everyone

i am gonna jump here and say, although we have the experience of choice and free will, in the truest of realities there is no such thing, consciousness simply is and trough the prism of self reflection all colors of the spectrum are seen NOW.

When you shine light in a prim all colors are manifest instantaneously, that's how everything is, although there is experience of change, nothing really changes.

It is the Beginning and the END, a complete circle without bonds where the center is everywhere.

It expands unto itself, although it is already everything it can be, and so it goes ... NOW