+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Community (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: Art, Media, & Entertainment (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=40)
+--- Thread: a bit of love for Scott Mandelker (/showthread.php?tid=7281)
Pages:
1
2
RE: a bit of love for Scott Mandelker - zenmaster - 03-31-2014
(03-31-2014, 12:34 AM)6D longing Wrote:How so?(03-30-2014, 03:55 PM)zenmaster Wrote: Listened to the first session. Somehow Mandelker translated "This Confederation works with the planetary spheres of seven of your galaxies, if you will, and is responsible for the callings of the densities of these galaxies." to mean that the seven solar systems represent the seven chakras. I'm not seeing that connection at all.
He also suggested that Ra had conflated the term solar system and galaxy, yet Ra knew of the differences very well and insisted on using the term galaxy due to their experience with time/space.
Also he said that dual activated types on Earth were 4D wanderers. Yet Ra says that the dual-activated are 4D native.
Some clarifications here:
1. I never intended to imply the seven solar systems equate to the seven chakras -- I said that the seven solar systems can be thought of as 7 chakras in a unified collective being of these 7 solar systems.
(03-31-2014, 12:34 AM)6D longing Wrote: 2. I am not implying Ra misunderstands ("conflates," i.e. mistakes) the difference between galaxy and solar system, I simply said they've used the term galaxy for what we term solar system:Yes there is no term in our language yet for time/space grouping.
16.35 [Ra identifies their term-usage as indicating our solar system, and recognizes alternate human-usage]
Ra: I am Ra. I see the confusion. We have difficulty with your language. The galaxy term must be split. We call galaxy that vibrational complex that is local. Thus, your sun is what we would call the center of a galaxy. We see you have another meaning for this term.
10.16 [Ra affirms their term-usage to indicate both single & multiple planetary/solar "groups" or systems]
Ra: I am Ra. We use the term known to your people by the sound vibration complex “galaxy.” We accept that some galaxies contain one system of planetary and solar groups, others containing several.
(03-31-2014, 12:34 AM)6D longing Wrote: 3. Of course, the double-bodied or dual-activated entities are native to 4D, and being here incarnate, can surely be deemed "wanderers."
63.13 [Ra identifies entities incarnating with "double body in activation" as "fourth density entities"]
Ra: I am Ra. These entities are those incarnating with what you may call a double body in activation. It will be noted that the entities birthing these fourth-density entities experience a great feeling of, shall we say, the connection and the use of spiritual energies during pregnancy. This is due to the necessity for manifesting the double body.
I'm not sure how much of this is quibbling due to the relative unimportance of this info, but Ra was indeed explicit that the dual-activated types are not Wanderers. If not Wanderers, a more appropriate terminology might be something like "transplants", due to development occurring under a different sub-logos. Of course during the ongoing local harvest, a small portion of dual-activated would be native as well.
"63.15 Questioner: Would the purpose in transitioning to Earth prior to the complete changeover then be for the experience to be gained here during the harvesting process?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. These entities are not Wanderers in the sense that this planetary sphere is their fourth-density home planet. However, the experience of this service is earned only by those harvested third-density entities which have demonstrated a great deal of orientation towards service to others. It is a privilege to be allowed this early an incarnation as there is much experiential catalyst in service to other-selves at this harvesting."
RE: a bit of love for Scott Mandelker - Plenum - 03-31-2014
do you think the term Wanderer also only strictly applies to those entities who have taken on-board all the limitations of a 3d incarnation? That is, a 4d, 5d, or 6d entity who agrees to incarnate 3d for the purposes of service/balancing, with no higher bodies activated.
whereas the dual-activated individuals, beginning their 4d learning early (while on a 3d planet), have not really 'wandered' away from their home density, as they are still connected to 4d via the higher body that is actively informing their 3d experience.
RE: a bit of love for Scott Mandelker - 6D longing - 03-31-2014
(03-31-2014, 02:43 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: do you think the term Wanderer also only strictly applies to those entities who have taken on-board all the limitations of a 3d incarnation? That is, a 4d, 5d, or 6d entity who agrees to incarnate 3d for the purposes of service/balancing, with no higher bodies activated.
whereas the dual-activated individuals, beginning their 4d learning early (while on a 3d planet), have not really 'wandered' away from their home density, as they are still connected to 4d via the higher body that is actively informing their 3d experience.
In agreement, it also seems to me that the term 'Wanderers' applies to "any 4D, 5D, or 6D [-home density origin] entity who agrees to incarnate [in] 3D for the purposes of service/balancing" -- regardless of being dual-activated or not.
Ra did not categorically state they are not Wanderers, merely that they "are not Wanderers in the sense that this planetary sphere is their fourth-density home planet." However, in the sense that they are (previously) "harvested third-density entities" (i.e. prior graduates to 4D+) -- and come here from 4D+ planets -- it is clear to me Ra implies they surely can be considered Wanderers.
By use of the qualifying phrase (explaining them as), "not Wanderers in the sense of...", I cannot agree that Ra was "indeed explicit that the dual-activated types are not Wanderers." As the adjective "explicit" can be defined as "unequivocal" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explicit), by use of the qualifiying phrase, Ra did not state unequivocally that they are not Wanderers.
Scott Mandelker
RE: a bit of love for Scott Mandelker - Fang - 03-31-2014
Quote:Of course, the double-bodied or dual-activated entities are native to 4D,and being here incarnate, can surely be deemed "wanderers."
"surely"? Because Ra said "Not wanderers in the sense of..."?
Wanderers and dual activated are two different things. Apples and oranges are both fruit but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Transplants are not wanderers. Those who were harvested in the second cycle and stayed here are not wanderers. Wanderers are those who come back to repeat third density after already progressing through the higher densities, whereas dual activated are still on a linear path of progression. To to put them together based on a vague allusion seems a bit pointless and false. What is the point of seeing dual activated peeps as wanderers? Especially given that it is not the impression given to the vast majority of people familiar with the Ra Material I'm genuinely curious.
Also, you do realize that things like this:
http://www.scottmandelker.com/Articles/etquiz.html
Is based on little more than free association as to what would qualify one as a wanderer?
RE: a bit of love for Scott Mandelker - spero - 03-31-2014
(03-31-2014, 04:37 AM)Fang Wrote: ...Those who were harvested in the second cycle and stayed here are not wanderers...
Quote:15.20 Questioner: Are there any Wanderers with these Elder Race, or not?
Ra: I am Ra. These are planetary entities harvested — Wanderers only in the sense that they chose, in fourth-density love, to immediately reincarnate in third density rather than proceeding towards fourth density. This causes them to be Wanderers of a type, Wanderers who have never left the Earth plane because of their free will rather than because of their vibrational level.
RE: a bit of love for Scott Mandelker - Fang - 03-31-2014
Lol good catch.
The point still stands though. "wanderers only in the sense..." And that was in response to a question specifically asking if the subjects in question were wanderers. Given Ra's tendency to elevate things to a cosmic level (understandable for a 6th density entity given the context) ie. "are you not all things", "all is one" etc. you can see why they would say they are not completely unwandererish (lol). I still wouldn't see dualies being wanderers at least not in the conventional sense so saying they "surely are" just seems a bit odd. whatevs though lol
RE: a bit of love for Scott Mandelker - isis - 03-31-2014
OMG, 6D LONGING IS SCOTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RE: a bit of love for Scott Mandelker - zenmaster - 03-31-2014
If an entity is harvested to this planet, how can they be considered to be a Wanderer? Through "intelligent infinity", they happened to match the Earth vibration as close as possible. If an entity does not step down from their native vibration, how can they be considered a Wanderer? Doesn't that run contrary to Williamson's idea of a Wanderer?
RE: a bit of love for Scott Mandelker - Steppingfeet - 04-02-2014
(05-27-2013, 04:44 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: this is Scott Mandelker's youtube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUnYjzZuZag8HtUiq0Mx_3Pg&feature=plcp
plenum
Thanks for posting this Plenum. Didn't see it till this thread was recently bumped up.
As with any source, I haven't agreed with 100% of SM's interpretations, but by and large I've found his understanding of spiritual evolution in general - and insight into the "Law of One" material - profound, insightful, and useful. Some of his interpretations of the Law of One are just outstanding. And I'm grateful that he has steadily and consistently worked to serve the Law of One community over the years.
Love/Light, GLB
PS: Fang, not writing as a mod, just another member. I have a question for you. That's alright if you have a critical review to make of the ET Quiz. That's alright even if you don't like it. But was your question framed in such a way that it honored the first guideline?
RE: a bit of love for Scott Mandelker - Fang - 04-03-2014
Quote:PS: Fang, not writing as a mod, just another member. I have a question for you. That's alright if you have a critical review to make of the ET Quiz. That's alright even if you don't like it. But was your question framed in such a way that it honored the first guideline?
I was criticizing an idea not a person, so yes. Also, the poster in question is apparently a doctor of philosophy in East and West Psychology so he'd know what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter to me if I like it or not, what matters to me is that it is deceiving and poorly constructed and providing an answer to a question he is not qualified to answer. And not only that but if it was one of the main links of his site, coming up second on google when you type in his name (his website is named after him).
RE: a bit of love for Scott Mandelker - Steppingfeet - 04-08-2014
(04-03-2014, 07:02 AM)Fang Wrote:Quote:PS: Fang, not writing as a mod, just another member. I have a question for you. That's alright if you have a critical review to make of the ET Quiz. That's alright even if you don't like it. But was your question framed in such a way that it honored the first guideline?
I was criticizing an idea not a person, so yes. Also, the poster in question is apparently a doctor of philosophy in East and West Psychology so he'd know what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter to me if I like it or not, what matters to me is that it is deceiving and poorly constructed and providing an answer to a question he is not qualified to answer. And not only that but if it was one of the main links of his site, coming up second on google when you type in his name (his website is named after him).
Thanks for replying Fang. I disagree with your assessment above. Here's why.
Each who participates in Bring4th, doctor of philosophy or otherwise, should be welcomed and treated with respect. Not all their ideas need be agreed with, or consented to, but they, the person, per the design of this community, should be greeted as a person of worth, dignity, and respect.
I think you agree with the necessity and helpfulness of that distinction judging by your statement that you criticized the idea, not the person. So we're on the same page there.
I feel that your criticism, however, went beyond the idea and became a small gesture of disrespect to the person due to the the approach itself, the *way* you disagreed with the idea. So much of communication relies on form, and tact, and neither, in my opinion, were exercised.
What do I mean? The form your criticism took was:
Quote:Also, you do realize that things like this:
http://www.scottmandelker.com/Articles/etquiz.html
Is based on little more than free association as to what would qualify one as a wanderer?
Of course you're free to determine that the quiz is nothing more than "free association". But coming at another person saying, "You do realize" is somewhat condescending. As if you are saying:
"I have found your work to be wholly deficient, and it is so self-evident that, certainly, you, the author of your work, must realize how bad this is? I mean, because I can see it clearly, why can't you?"
Alternative:
"Hi Scott, welcome to the forums and thanks for posting here. If you have the time/interest, I'd like to ask a question about your ET Quiz. I enjoyed aspects of it, but at the same time, some of it seems like free association to me. For instance, __________. I would really appreciate your feedback. Especially regarding anything you would be interested in sharing about how you developed this quiz.”
There, you would have showed respect to the person, and you would have substantiated your claim to “free association” by taking the time and care to explain what you meant, without sacrificing your point.
And maybe even throw in a note of appreciation for something about his work in order to balance the criticism. It seems you are familiar with the work, so surely there is something you appreciate?
************************************************************
Personally, I was kind of ashamed to see the way Scott was related to. As I said, *everyone* should receive a welcoming embrace upon entering the forums, and an attitude of respect should be maintained, but in this particular case we have someone who has labored to serve the wanderer/Law of One community for decades in a spirit similar to L/L’s in attempting to offer free service. I can count on one hand the number of “public” figures out there working with this information, using their own name. And he’s the only one of whom I’m aware that is working with abductees from the standpoint of the Law of One.
He deserves better treatment. The same message I extend to you, Zenmaster. As one member to another, please, if you’re going to use your right and gift of communication, put love energy into it, especially disagreeing or offering critical review. The community deserves the little extra time that may require.
With love/light,
Gary
PS: About the quiz specifically, we at L/L have shared it as a fun tool, a starting point for consideration of the question of wanderer identity, a food for thought that is always offered with the caveat that *only* the seeker can discover and determine their origins.
Mandelker offers the quiz in that spirit as well. Just below the quiz on his website he writes:
“Remember, only you can know for sure if you are from elsewhere, and knowing your cosmic roots is only the first step. After that, it's essential to consider why you're here and what is your purpose. Being on Earth gives all Wanderers a perfect opportunity to develop ourselves, to refine our understanding and expression of love and wisdom, and to help the world in our own special way."
Consider also that this quiz has, actually, helped wanderers to consider the question, and has even in some cases served as an important catalyst of awakening. Consider, also, that, to the best of my memory, he created that as a result of actual and substantial interviewing and examining of those who consider themselves wanderers.
Note: I am writing as myself, not as a proxy for anyone else. I haven't exchanged correspondence with Dr. Mandelker in a year or so.
Mod Edit: Fang's reply and subsequent conversation were relocated to "Cognitive Distortions" here.
RE: a bit of love for Scott Mandelker - AnthroHeart - 04-08-2014
Thanks Scott for that ET quiz. I scored a 91 if I recall correctly. So definitely an ET/wanderer soul.
RE: a bit of love for Scott Mandelker - zenmaster - 04-09-2014
I'm thinking I'll just continue posting the way I normally do Gary, thanks for the input though.
(03-31-2014, 02:43 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: do you think the term Wanderer also only strictly applies to those entities who have taken on-board all the limitations of a 3d incarnation? That is, a 4d, 5d, or 6d entity who agrees to incarnate 3d for the purposes of service/balancing, with no higher bodies activated.Yes.
(03-31-2014, 02:43 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: whereas the dual-activated individuals, beginning their 4d learning early (while on a 3d planet), have not really 'wandered' away from their home density, as they are still connected to 4d via the higher body that is actively informing their 3d experience.A wanderer has necessarily agreed to a mission, which is of course not the case with the dual-activated (indigos), native-density entities who were harvested to a planet of their native evolution. If you're harvested to a planet, you're not a wanderer there.
Quote:70.15 Questioner: I think to try and clear up this point I’m going to ask a few questions that are related that will possibly enable me to understand this better because I am really confused about this and I think it is a very important point in understanding the creation and the Creator in general, you might say. If a Wanderer of fourth, fifth, or sixth density dies from this third-density state in which we presently find ourselves, does he then find himself in third-density time/space after death?
Ra: I am Ra. This will depend upon the plan which has been approved by the Council of Nine. Some Wanderers offer themselves for but one incarnation while others offer themselves for varying lengths of your time up to and including the last two cycles of 25,000 years. If the agreed-upon mission is complete the Wanderer’s mind/body/spirit complex will go to the home vibration.