(08-27-2012, 08:19 AM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2012, 11:17 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2012, 02:50 PM)Icaro Wrote: [ -> ]The hallmark of "piercing the veil" is clearing the indigo center for contact with intelligent infinity, and in 44.13 Ra states Don can do this. Yet he was living a rather normal life, and in 83.18 it's said that we can only expect the veil to be dismantled to a greater or lesser extent.
This is interesting "The forgetting process can be penetrated to the extent of the Wanderer remembering what it is and why it is upon the planetary sphere." It would be an infringement to learn further, but what is actually blocking that? Can a failsafe really be successfully programmed? The higher self must be actively blocking the information through confusion attempts. Perhaps extreme disinterest is indicated if one is getting too close, or pain and distraction, or maybe a psychological disorder rendering the individual ineffective at examining self?
This is indeed how it goes for me. So now I just enjoy the ride and focus on what I am allowed to "know".
(08-27-2012, 12:16 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]...harmless, ultimately unverifiable answer which is seemingly instinctively crafted to be widely open to interpretation and a non-answer.
Isn't this the hallmark of the law of confusion in veiled 3d?
Isnt the hallmark of ALL communcation in 3d (as long as you have a physical body i think) one where no absolutely verifiable answers can be acquired.
(08-27-2012, 03:14 PM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]Isnt the hallmark of ALL communcation in 3d (as long as you have a physical body i think) one where no absolutely verifiable answers can be acquired.
Doesn't that apply to all densities (illusions), where only the Octave Density is real?
(08-27-2012, 05:43 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2012, 03:14 PM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]Isnt the hallmark of ALL communcation in 3d (as long as you have a physical body i think) one where no absolutely verifiable answers can be acquired.
Doesn't that apply to all densities (illusions), where only the Octave Density is real?
Far as I understand, the degree of verificability increased with densities, with 3 having no certainty and 4 being certainty of "all is love" and 5th being another certainty. With the degree of uncertainty growing smaller until no separation between self and other self exists and unity is reached.
Dont know if im right tho
(08-27-2012, 08:19 AM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2012, 12:16 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]...harmless, ultimately unverifiable answer which is seemingly instinctively crafted to be widely open to interpretation and a non-answer.
Isn't this the hallmark of the law of confusion in veiled 3d?
Yes, but obviously what's confusing for one is not necessarily confusing for another. Further, developmentally, there are subdensities which serve as interpretative frameworks for answers. It is sometimes impossible to express an answer within the constraints of particular patterns of distortion. Many times the individual did not know what they asked in the first place, so any answer would be rattling around as a misinterpreted distraction.
(08-27-2012, 03:14 PM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]Isnt the hallmark of ALL communcation in 3d (as long as you have a physical body i think) one where no absolutely verifiable answers can be acquired.
We create an abstraction on nature or reality, due to our inability to address the noumenal. We consensually agree on the terms of the abstraction. What is an infringement is to sidestep one's own developmental preparation for answers to one's naive questions.
(08-27-2012, 09:21 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2012, 08:19 AM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2012, 12:16 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]...harmless, ultimately unverifiable answer which is seemingly instinctively crafted to be widely open to interpretation and a non-answer.
Isn't this the hallmark of the law of confusion in veiled 3d?
Yes, but obviously what's confusing for one is not necessarily confusing for another. Further, developmentally, there are subdensities which serve as interpretative frameworks for answers. It is sometimes impossible to express an answer within the constraints of particular patterns of distortion. Many times the individual did not know what they asked in the first place, so any answer would be rattling around as a misinterpreted distraction.
Indeed but I would suggest not to forget what Ra said about how important it is to accept that we do not know. We simply cannot
really know while in 3d. It took me a long time to get this. I was a very logical person before I understood this.
(08-27-2012, 09:31 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed but I would suggest not to forget what Ra said about how important it is to accept that we do not know. We simply cannot really know while in 3d. It took me a long time to get this. I was a very logical person before I understood this.
Philosophically, the idea is quite old though. It has nothing to do with logic, of course.
(08-27-2012, 09:21 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]We create an abstraction on nature or reality, due to our inability to address the noumenal. We consensually agree on the terms of the abstraction. What is an infringement is to sidestep one's own developmental preparation for answers to one's naive questions.
In early use, the word "naive" meant natural or innocent, and did not connote ineptitude.
Asking innocent questions about once own developent is an infrignement?
(08-27-2012, 09:31 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed but I would suggest not to forget what Ra said about how important it is to accept that we do not know. We simply cannot really know while in 3d. It took me a long time to get this. I was a very logical person before I understood this.
From my.. trippy.. point of view, the real answer is open and full admittance that you do not know, from the heart. That seems to have a visible tangible effect on how the universe reacts to you, as opposed to any concept of knowing that i have yet encountered.
I would say that the purpose of existence as we experience it is not to know, but building ideas about what it is that we dont know is facinating.
(08-28-2012, 05:47 AM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2012, 09:21 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]We create an abstraction on nature or reality, due to our inability to address the noumenal. We consensually agree on the terms of the abstraction. What is an infringement is to sidestep one's own developmental preparation for answers to one's naive questions.
In early use, the word "naive" meant natural or innocent, and did not connote ineptitude.
Asking innocent questions about once own developent is an infrignement?
Naive as in unprepared, lacking foundation, unsophisticated. Receiving a response to a question which one was basically unprepared to integrate where the communication of information would not lead to learning or healing from self. Which is basically the same thing as not having sufficiently considered the question.
(08-28-2012, 08:43 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2012, 05:47 AM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2012, 09:21 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]We create an abstraction on nature or reality, due to our inability to address the noumenal. We consensually agree on the terms of the abstraction. What is an infringement is to sidestep one's own developmental preparation for answers to one's naive questions.
In early use, the word "naive" meant natural or innocent, and did not connote ineptitude.
Asking innocent questions about once own developent is an infrignement?
Naive as in unprepared, lacking foundation, unsophisticated. Receiving a response to a question which one was basically unprepared to integrate where the communication of information would not lead to learning or healing from self. Which is basically the same thing as not having sufficiently considered the question.
It might not be smart but is infringement the word you wish to use to describe it, because it implies it is against the free will or confusion of the entity in question.
(08-28-2012, 08:45 AM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]It might not be smart but is infringement the word you wish to use to describe it, because it implies it is against the free will or confusion of the entity in question.
I was attempting to describe the conditions where it is possible to infringe on free will. Here, the opportunities for understanding self are provided by 'mind' - both personal and collective ('planetary'/'racial'). One may not have yet made use of the collective to form a foundation which can meet certain answers. That is, what is known (the world view) and what may be offered (thus modifying the world view, if accepted) does not have sufficient preparation on the receiving end.
We must always meet what we learn with our experience. Our experience has a direct bearing on our choices. If our experience is to be modified, so will our choices. Free will allows us to determine how to receive, what we are ready to receive, as a natural outgrowth of what is known. The 'confusion' aspect is the allowance for interpretation (thus self-determination) from the individual. So with 'confusion', the individual may be lead by their own volition to meet the answer in their own way so it may directly supplement what is already known in a relatively unique way. I say relatively unique, because below the individual mind we share a collective mind as a resource which provides interpretation and informs in a way only unique to this planet.
(08-27-2012, 12:39 AM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]"When indeed there is information requested which might infringe upon the development of the questioner, there will be nothing; that is to say, no input from the channeling entity. At this point, the character presented is completely of the channelers own mind."
No wonder, so much of the channeled material all around the world is crap. Yet, as long as it fits mainstream themes, it is lapped up by the followers.
This is one of the reasons, I have gone back and read so much material on this forum, because there are very few people here, who claim to be channelers, or special children of Ra or what not. Most of the posters here seem to be genuine seekers, without fantasies about their special-hood. Sometimes, you guys share too much love though.
There are a few "breaking news form my higher self" or "latest development in my spiritual expertise" type of exceptions, but easy to spot and actually quite amusing.
my mother used to tell me, 'you're special but not *that* special' lol
(04-12-2014, 10:56 PM)reeay Wrote: [ -> ]my mother used to tell me, 'you're special but not *that* special' lol
Yeah, sometimes our mothers do pamper us good, but then bring us back down to Earth pretty fast too. I never got any pocket-money, until the age of 16, when I decided to take initiative and sneak some out of my tuition money.