this is a quote that was from Ra, and then expanded upon by Q'uo.
Quote:100.9 Ra stated in the last session that the limit of the viewpoint is the source of all distortions
I think we have all experienced the situation when we were quite critical or judgemental about someone because they did 'this' or 'that', but then later on someone else tells us that that person had someone close to them die recently, or that that person had a bad experience, and that's why they reacted that way. We soften our attitudes, and instantly become more understanding.
we had incomplete information, and so our viewpoint was 'limited', thus causing or contributing to our particular distorted reaction.
Distortion in itself is not a 'bad' thing, as the distortion can be observed and then reverse-engineered to see the original limited viewpoint. Here is Q'uos perception of the concept of distortion.
http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._0404.aspx
Quo Wrote:in order to discuss this we must move back to examine that concept of distortion. This is the way that we use the word distortion. To our way of thinking, all that there is in the manifested world is distortion. The lack of distortion, when absolute, describes intelligent infinity, the Creator Itself, in Its unpotentiated state. The first distortion which approaches the unmanifest intelligent infinity is free will. This produces that manifestation of the Logos which is known to this instrument as intelligent energy and known to your scientists as the photon, or light. When we come to you in the love and in the light of the infinite Creator we are coming to you in those distortions, for were we to come to you as undistorted Creator we would have no being in a manifested universe. We would be unable to act in any way, for all would be one in an absolute sense.
and then Q'uo continues on saying that many of these self-chosen distortions in the personality field offer big opportunities for personal learning.
Quo Wrote:So when we gaze at the distortion of a particular personality shell, at the systems of energy blockage and bafflement which causes what seem to others as an unbalanced or distorted personality, we gaze upon distortions of distortions of distortions. We gaze upon systems of energy, all of which are distortions of the one great original Thought which is Love. To us, then, that a person is distorted in such and such a way, in the context of an incarnation, is not a bad, a wrong, or an incorrect thing. For we are aware that each entity before incarnation selects the personality shell which contains those gifts and those physical, mental, emotional and spiritual limitations which will create biases or distortions, which will then set up both the personal learning for that entity for that incarnation and the path of service or paths of service that become available to the entity during incarnation, given that various systems of distortion do indeed prove to stand the test of incarnational time.
a fruitful question to ask myself is: where are the current limits of my viewpoint? (quite literally)
Ra: The positive polarity attempts to see through the illusion to the Creator in each mind/body/spirit complex, but for the greater part is concerned with behaviors and thoughts directed towards other-selves in order to be of service. This attitude in itself is full of the stuff of your third-density illusion.
(09-22-2012, 08:11 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]a fruitful question to ask myself is: where are the current limits of my viewpoint? (quite literally)
This is basically what I started addressing in my first messages on this forum, to what seems to be zero effect. I guarantee that unless one has unrestricted access to "blue ray", the answers to this question will not be forthcoming. Instead, the limits of viewpoint will be seen only as infinite in potential which, of course, is a way to avoid self.
(09-22-2012, 08:23 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2012, 08:11 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]a fruitful question to ask myself is: where are the current limits of my viewpoint? (quite literally)
I guarantee that unless one has unrestricted access to "blue ray", the answers to this question will not be forthcoming. Instead, the limits of viewpoint will be seen only as infinite in potential which, of course, is a way to avoid self.
Hey Zen would you mind explaining that a little more?
Specifically the limits of viewpoint will be seen only as infinite in potential which avoids the self.
(09-22-2012, 09:34 PM)Sagittarius Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2012, 08:23 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2012, 08:11 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]a fruitful question to ask myself is: where are the current limits of my viewpoint? (quite literally)
I guarantee that unless one has unrestricted access to "blue ray", the answers to this question will not be forthcoming. Instead, the limits of viewpoint will be seen only as infinite in potential which, of course, is a way to avoid self.
Hey Zen would you mind explaining that a little more?
Specifically the limits of viewpoint will be seen only as infinite in potential which avoids the self.
If a person can honestly know when/where something is unknown, it would be impossible to have attachments, overreach, exaggerate, or project (for example). However, if this honesty is denied then the limits of viewpoint are seen as infinite (unlimited). That approach is not one which can effectively transcend limits, it's one which sweeps them under the rug and therefore ultimately cheating self.
(09-23-2012, 02:05 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2012, 09:34 PM)Sagittarius Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2012, 08:23 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2012, 08:11 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]a fruitful question to ask myself is: where are the current limits of my viewpoint? (quite literally)
I guarantee that unless one has unrestricted access to "blue ray", the answers to this question will not be forthcoming. Instead, the limits of viewpoint will be seen only as infinite in potential which, of course, is a way to avoid self.
Hey Zen would you mind explaining that a little more?
Specifically the limits of viewpoint will be seen only as infinite in potential which avoids the self.
If a person can honestly know when/where something is unknown, it would be impossible to have attachments, overreach, exaggerate, or project (for example). However, if this honesty is denied then the limits of viewpoint are seen as infinite (unlimited). That approach is not one which can effectively transcend limits, it's one which sweeps them under the rug and therefore ultimately cheating self.
Thanks I understand it more now. Funny how my honesty of me not knowing the limit to my viewpoint by admitting it and asking you for clarification in turn expanded my viewpoint. I just looked into spiral dynamics because of your posts in another thread and watched a few videos on it and then I see your reply here and yeh a lot of light has been seen hehe.
Awareness of the limits of knowledge among a social group is also how a social memory complex may begin to form (and only then). That awareness has an auto-harmonization effect because, as the unconscious is everything, it is applicable to all interiors. After that type of honesty is sufficiently balanced, healing via indigo may occur.
If there is awareness of the limits of knowledge, the intuition may not be not abused, and learning may be vastly accelerated for the individual and (automatically) for the entire society. Indeed what you learn from that honest approach, others may have the opportunity to pick up.
Well there is the blue-ray ability which supports the communication of knowledge and the awareness of limits of knowledge. And then there is the question of how intuitive notions may be elicited (to become explicit) and therefore explored consciously shared. In the latter case, the intuitive notion must first become actual experience through evaluation.
(09-23-2012, 09:19 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Well there is the blue-ray ability which supports the communication of knowledge and the awareness of limits of knowledge. And then there is the question of how intuitive notions may be elicited (to become explicit) and therefore explored consciously shared. In the latter case, the intuitive notion must first become actual experience through evaluation.
The problem or road bump with the latter would be how to share intuitive notions so that each person in the group could evaluate it through actual experience, from my own personal intuitions that I have seen become experiences it is hard to imagine being able to share it in a way to replicate the evaluation to others.
I guess that is the challenge or question as you put it. Especially when you factor in the differences in limits of knowledge each entity may have in the group.
(09-23-2012, 09:34 PM)Sagittarius Wrote: [ -> ] (09-23-2012, 09:19 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Well there is the blue-ray ability which supports the communication of knowledge and the awareness of limits of knowledge. And then there is the question of how intuitive notions may be elicited (to become explicit) and therefore explored consciously shared. In the latter case, the intuitive notion must first become actual experience through evaluation.
The problem or road bump with the latter would be how to share intuitive notions so that each person in the group could evaluate it through actual experience, from my own personal intuitions that I have seen become experiences it is hard to imagine being able to share it in a way to replicate the evaluation to others.
The first step is to sufficiently evaluate the perceptions themselves so that they may become seated personal experience. It becomes much less of a problem to conceptually communicate after that point. Although, in order to share the (new) experience with another, there must be prior evaluated concepts known by the other which are capable of serving as a bridge. People can address other experiences with their experience, since fundamental principles providing analogies have always been involved throughout learning.
Another problem is that the charged, overwhelming concepts first apprehended by the intuition are kept at bay (i.e. on a pedestal due to too much numinosity or hope) for the sole purpose of protecting the ego. Such concepts are too big for the person to digest currently (yet somehow mysteriously guiding) and tend to have spiritual quality.
Question:
Whats the difference between "path of service" and "paths of service"
(09-24-2012, 05:17 AM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]Question:
Whats the difference between "path of service" and "paths of service"
Nothing, everything is a service, all paths are service.
(09-24-2012, 08:43 AM)Sagittarius Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2012, 05:17 AM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]Question:
Whats the difference between "path of service" and "paths of service"
Nothing, everything is a service, all paths are service.
"the path of service or paths of service that become available to the entity during incarnation"
They are making it so specific that its a "path of service" or "paths of service" that i feel this probably has some merit, cant say for sure more than that.
(09-24-2012, 11:01 AM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2012, 08:43 AM)Sagittarius Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2012, 05:17 AM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]Question:
Whats the difference between "path of service" and "paths of service"
Nothing, everything is a service, all paths are service.
"the path of service or paths of service that become available to the entity during incarnation"
They are making it so specific that its a "path of service" or "paths of service" that i feel this probably has some merit, cant say for sure more than that.
To me there just saying one path of service is usually many paths of service. I mean each entity's life is a unique path of services right one which many paths are taken to serve.
I mean you could break it down into categories, i.e path of beauty path of truth etc.
(09-22-2012, 08:11 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]a fruitful question to ask myself is: where are the current limits of my viewpoint? (quite literally)
.
I do not think that there is a limit at all Plenum.
Is the bounds of perception and learning not unlimited, and is that not the very essence of evolution?
(09-27-2012, 06:47 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._0915.aspx L/Leema Wrote:...May I ask if the answer to the last question implies that the only limitations we really have are those we have put on ourselves?
I am L/Leema, and this is most emphatically correct, my brother. It is the placement of limitations in each incarnation by your own free choice which allows you to experience and to gain a greater knowledge of yourself and the creation and the Creator through such experience. The limitation of the viewpoint is the source of all distortion, and distortion is a means by which experience is gained...
A mean, but not The mean or Only mean.
Right?
(09-28-2012, 01:53 AM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2012, 06:47 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._0915.aspx L/Leema Wrote:...May I ask if the answer to the last question implies that the only limitations we really have are those we have put on ourselves?
I am L/Leema, and this is most emphatically correct, my brother. It is the placement of limitations in each incarnation by your own free choice which allows you to experience and to gain a greater knowledge of yourself and the creation and the Creator through such experience. The limitation of the viewpoint is the source of all distortion, and distortion is a means by which experience is gained...
A mean, but not The mean or Only mean.
Right?
A mean yes. But it seems to be The mean here in veiled 3d.
Something to meditate on.
The first limitation of the viewpoint is freewill. And this first limitation automatically gave rise to manyness.