Bring4th
David Wilcock - Printable Version

+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Spiritual Development & Metaphysical Matters (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: David Wilcock (/showthread.php?tid=253)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


David Wilcock - Sirius - 04-20-2009

This is only a short one unfortunately but other peoples opinions on this are important.

Is this David Wilcock guy relieable from a L/L Research point of view? i.e
Can he really channel Ra?
Could he confused Spirits for UFOs? rather than vice versa on my part?

I have recently watched the project camelot videos and the 2012 enigma. These videos have correlated alot of information together for me. and have made some real dramatic impressions on my mind again.

I could pin this entire revival of my spirituality on David Wilcock, so in a way it is really important I get some sence into how reliable this character is.

and if he is relaible I owe him alot hehe

I just feel like i need to double check this before i dive into the wrong end of the pool.

Hope this makes sence,
Love and Light,
Sirius


RE: David Wilcock - yossarian - 04-20-2009

What do you mean by reliable?

He publishes a lot of really good scientific discoveries that you might find meaningful.

He publishes readings of his channeling stuff, but channeled info is only as reliable as you want it to be. Ra is no more reliable than any other channeled info, the only thing that differentiates them is the message itself, and David's Ra is pretty much the same in message as the L/L Research Ra.

There are a few iffy places, but the correlation between David's Ra and LL-Ra is much closer than the correlations between Carla's Q'uo and LL-Ra.

That is to say, David's stuff all fits in very very closely to the Ra Material, even more closely than Carla's own conscious channeling. For instance Carla & Q'uo believe in a gradual ascension that lasts over the next several hundred years, whereas LL-Ra and David Ra over and over again emphasize the discontinous nature of the shift in 2012. Ra says it is like a clock striking the hour - that precise - with the galaxy itself being seen like a clock and the shift being a single discontinuous moment that is based on the specific astrology. This fits in with the Mayans and with David's work, but not with Carla's Q'uo.

So I mean it's all channeling, it's all equally unreliable, all judgments of channeling has to be based on "what resonates".

The different doctrines based on New Age channeling are as various as the different Bible interpretations. Seems like every person has their own unique interpretation. "Reliable" is not really a word that can be used for ANY channeled info.


RE: David Wilcock - Monica - 04-21-2009

I agree that all channeled works, and all info, whether channeled or not for that matter, is subject to individual discernment.

Regarding David Wilcock's channeling: Both David and Carla have officially stated that the two Ra’s are not one and the same. David goes further to say that Ra as it comes through him is not an extension of the Law of One material.

In the case of the Law of One series, Ra is a sixth social memory complex of the outer planes, who, according to the Law of One material, evolved upon Venus.

According to David, he is channeling his higher self who is a member of the Ra group. In channeling his higher self, the information is filtered through his fifth density male and female selves. How you choose to value any external source of information is a matter of your own discernment.

As for the issue of sudden vs gradual Harvest, I invite you to check out the ongoing discussion of this topic in:

Bring4th Forums > The Harvest > What is everyone's gut feeling on 2012?


RE: David Wilcock - ayadew - 04-21-2009

Reliable? What is reliability... everything can be denied and embraced, my friend. It's your free will. We all have distorted understanding until we are one; Ra and Ra and Q'uo, Carla, me, David, you.

I deeply respect David for his work and his opinions, for he has brought many people revelation and happiness. He is a remarkable person that, although I do not read/listen to him anymore since my spiritual development needed other catalysts, helped me at some point in life.


RE: David Wilcock - Sirius - 04-21-2009

Thanks very much people,
I can see you all put alot of thought into it and for that I'm grateful ^^

I guess me asking for his reliability, was just the little part of me that still doesent want to believe that it is ALL true. (I'll post my "wanderer story" soon for you to look at, as messed up as it is)

Monica, it is interesting you explain about how David is channeling through a fecet or Ra(have i got this right?) I have a theory of my own for an entity I used to be incontact with. We called him Azrael, even though we knew it wasnt his 'real' name. Maybe I'm looking too deeply but az-RA-el? It seemed to stike me as too much of a coincedence.

I did have a little look at that thread last night, but at 3am i did not get very far hehe. It is one of the most vital points, sudden/gradual shift, this is probably the bit of information I (and proabably many more) want verification with. but from what little of the thread I read i found that this is un-knowable. We just have to wait, and hold faith.

Yossarian, I have not come across this Q'uo before besides what was mentioned in the few threads i read last night, I have to be honest, and speaking of resonation this q'uo does not give me a positive feeling at all. If it had done, I would have found the source of it all last night before bed! hehe

Ayadew, I understand how he deserves respect, being open about such things, the main reason I kept my own story quiet was due to humiliation, I had lost a few a friends that thought I had lost the plot, so I learnt to not talk about it. There is maybe 2 people in the world I can speak to comfortably with about all of this. He deserves so much respect for 'biting the bullet', and you can see in his videos the look I used to give when talking about it. "I'm gunna say this and your gunna think im nuts!" A very brave soul indeed.

Thanks for your time and guidance Tongue it is all much needed at the moment.

Love and Light,
Sirius


RE: David Wilcock - Monica - 04-21-2009

(04-21-2009, 08:42 AM)Sirius Wrote: Monica, it is interesting you explain about how David is channeling through a fecet or Ra(have i got this right?)

Yes, a facet OF Ra, and that is from David himself.

(04-21-2009, 08:42 AM)Sirius Wrote: ..., I have not come across this Q'uo before besides what was mentioned in the few threads i read last night, I have to be honest, and speaking of resonation this q'uo does not give me a positive feeling at all. If it had done, I would have found the source of it all last night before bed! hehe

Hmmmm...interesting and surprising...though I'm not sure how one can be sure of resonance based only upon a name! May I invite you to read some of the Q'uo material before forming an opinion?

The Q'uo material is available at the 'Library' section at the top of this page....then click on 'transcripts.' You can also see a sampling of the channeled sessions in the forum 'Sessions in Focus.' I would like to recommend the session 'STS Coup...Rejoining the time lateral' for starters.

I find the Q'uo material to be an extension of the Ra material, and actually more comforting, personal, and applicable to everyday life. I consider the Law of One books to provide the foundation, a cosmology, but the Q'uo works to be invaluable in helping us to understand and apply the Law of One.

Truthfully, I can't fathom anyone perceiving Q'uo as being negative, once they read the channeled info.


RE: David Wilcock - peelstreetguy - 04-21-2009

Monica, just right, just perfect! Thank you. I second everything Monica said so far in this thread!


RE: David Wilcock - Sirius - 04-22-2009

I will be fair and say I did begin looking at som eof it although not intentionally lol. I have learnt about Quos situation in 4D also.

These things all certainly make sence, and the suttle differences in the messages between Quo and Ra, I am lead to believe are more orientated to Love and not Wisdom. Which for some is helpfull, but it is not what I am looking for right now. I have know about TLOO for a couple of years but never really read it, most probably becuase wouldent have taken it seriosly 2 years ago. Only recently having the pants bored off me by ACIM (A Course in Miracles, for those who dont understand that.) but being convinced by it's logic did I learn to appreceate TLOO.

I might have worded about what idea Quo gave me a little wrong. There just was a lack of a resonance, and I do try (especially online) to follow these instincts.

Much Love and Light,


RE: David Wilcock - Monica - 04-22-2009

(04-22-2009, 07:03 AM)Sirius Wrote: I will be fair and say I did begin looking at som eof it although not intentionally lol. I have learnt about Quos situation in 4D also.

These things all certainly make sence, and the suttle differences in the messages between Quo and Ra, I am lead to believe are more orientated to Love and not Wisdom. Which for some is helpfull, but it is not what I am looking for right now. I have know about TLOO for a couple of years but never really read it, most probably becuase wouldent have taken it seriosly 2 years ago. Only recently having the pants bored off me by ACIM (A Course in Miracles, for those who dont understand that.) but being convinced by it's logic did I learn to appreceate TLOO.

I might have worded about what idea Quo gave me a little wrong. There just was a lack of a resonance, and I do try (especially online) to follow these instincts.

Much Love and Light,

OK, fair enough! Q'uo always says that if their offering does not resonate, please discard. So you are right to discard it if it doesn't resonate with you.

I apologize if I took your words "not positive" to mean "negative." Perhaps you didn't actually mean "negative" but simply "did not resonate." There is a big difference there.

If I perceive something as negative, I discard it.

If I perceive something as "not resonating" then I discard it for the time being, but reserve the right to revisit it at a later time. Sometimes it's just a matter of timing. There are many things I accept now, that would have seemed strange or "not in resonance" in the past.

I can completely understand if something does not resonate. I would be very surprised if someone actually found the Q'uo material to be actually negative.

So, thank you for the clarification!

Many blessings to you!


RE: David Wilcock - Sirius - 04-22-2009

hehe

I'll be sure to keep Quo in mind when I've had my fill ;p

Maybe a little of topic, but how many wanderers are there supposed to be?

In your thoughts is everybody on this forum a wanderer by thier own thinking?

I'm just trying to get a grasp of things still hehe

Love and Light


RE: David Wilcock - airwaves - 04-22-2009

(04-22-2009, 12:39 PM)Sirius Wrote: hehe

I'll be sure to keep Quo in mind when I've had my fill ;p

Maybe a little of topic, but how many wanderers are there supposed to be?

In your thoughts is everybody on this forum a wanderer by thier own thinking?

I'm just trying to get a grasp of things still hehe

Love and Light

Well it is thought, considering the sheer luck/chance that it takes to stumble upon this humble little website, that much seeking had to take place to find it.

If you were attracted to the LOO and found this website, you are likely an enlightened individual or a wanderer. (or both hehe)

This is regurgitated information; I had basically the same question when I had first shown up here, and got that answer. When you step back and consider it there are a lot of indigo children and wanderers right now and those are the ones most likely to find places like this. Smile

Love and Peace my friends


RE: David Wilcock - 3D Sunset - 04-22-2009

(04-20-2009, 10:16 PM)yossarian Wrote: So I mean it's all channeling, it's all equally unreliable, all judgments of channeling has to be based on "what resonates".

Well, actually no, it's not all just channeling, and it's not, IMHO, all "equally unreliable". Remember that the Law of One was received through Carla when she was in a trance. Unlike her consciously channeled material, she was not conscious and had absolutely no recollection of what she said when she returned from trance. As such, and is indicated by Ra himself this provided him the opportunity to convey his understanding of TLOO with as few distortions as possible short of his appearing in person (and thus creating an entirely different set of distortions). If you read the descriptions of Carla's Ra channeling as compared to Carla's Q'uo or DW's "Ra" you see several significant differences:

- Trance vs conscious. The unconscious trance state actually required Carla's spirit to vacate her mind/body complex during the sessions. This left Ra with the opportunity to enter her body, just behind the crown of the head and take physical control of her body. Nothing even remotely similar happens in conscious channeling.
- Narrow band vs. wide band. There really hasn't been much said about this, but Ra mentions it numerous times in TLOO, so it is clearly important. Drawing an analogy from RF communications, there is more focused information inherent in narrow band communications, but they also require much more sensitive and finely tuned systems, hence the group of three, the pre-session preparations, the sending of love and light during the sessions, the incense, etc, and the careful procedures for aiding Carla's return after the session.
- Channeler receives a "concept" vs channeled entity directly speaking the message. The other two lead up to this one, which is the biggest point. In consciously channeled messages, the channeler receives a concept thought which they then attempt to express using their conscious mind, which is limited by their world knowledge and vocabulary and distorted by their world view, preferences and prejudices. The material received by Carla in her trances was not dependent upon her a priori knowledge, vocabulary, or awareness at all. (Indeed Carla indicates that Ra's vocabulary exceeded hers and they frequently had to grab the dictionary to look up some of his words and references.)

These differences are significant points in both the LOO material and in my confidence in it. It's interesting to note, that David Wilcock has frequently indicated that TLOO is the only channeled material that he can embrace, except for his own channeled material. One might ask the question why David would ask us to trust third party consciously channeled material when he doesn't?

For me personally, I feel so many distortions when reading any consciously channeled material that I frequently can't find the real intended message at all. Thus, much of David's as well as Carla's other material doesn't resonate with me because there's just too much noise in the message.

That is not to say that I don't read some of the sessions, I just tend to drastically discount them, especially anything that is remotely of a transitory nature.

You are correct in saying that all comes down to what resonates. I would suggest that I have never seen a more pure touchstone of minimized distortions than Carla's trance channeled LOO material. As such, I always look first to TLOO for the purest message, and make every effort to exclude any and all transitory material from all channeled material.

Just my 2 cents.

Love and Light,

3D Sunset


RE: David Wilcock - yossarian - 04-22-2009

I actually completely agree with you, on everything but the definition of "reliable"

The fact that the Ra material was received in a trance is immaterial because lots of dumb crap is received in a trance. Just the fact that someone goes into a trance does not lend credence to their material.

Instead, what I especially agree with you about is where you said this:

3D Sunset Wrote:For me personally, I feel so many distortions when reading any consciously channeled material that I frequently can't find the real intended message at all. Thus, much of David's as well as Carla's other material doesn't resonate with me because there's just too much noise in the message.

I have the same experience. Reading David and Carla's work, and judging entirely on the intuitive feeling of resonance, I get a lower quality from their channels in comparison to Ra. To me, LOO is higher quality because of the fact that it resonates, not due to any transmission details.

David Wilcock himself is actually the first to admit that he has had numerous negative influences coming through on his channelings, and if you dig into his archive he makes sure to point out a lot of places that he believes were negatively influenced.

This is a testament to the theory that says channeling alone and channeling consciously are more difficult than channeling unconsciously with a group. So it makes sense from a theoretical perspective, but you can't point this arrow both ways.

I just think it's wrong to use anything BUT the message ITSELF as a judge for truth when it comes to channeled material. So the fact that David and Carla's conscious channeling are conscious can take away from their reliability, but at the same time it doesn't lend extra reliability to Ra, who already has basically zero reliability.

I guess the way I see it is channeled info starts at 0 reliability and only goes down from there. My 5 year old nephew has a reliability of, say, 10, while the best channeled material has a reliability of 0, and typical channeled material a reliability of -30 or something :p

Point is, channeled stuff is almost impossible to trust because something that resonates with you is, at best, a reflection of your own highest-realized self, meaning the best part of yourself that you have managed to dig up, which really isn't your higher self per se but just a distortion of some of your higher self. Trusting your own as-of-now-highest-realization is good, but one should recognize that it is not an authority but rather a reflection.

Other humans can act as authorities and trust-worthy companions in ways that channeled material can never do, and so this is why it's important in my opinion to also look to human traditions and human masters who give their testimony. The testimony of a living human being who has personally experienced the divine is far more valuable than a channeled entity because a human being in the flesh can be ascribed true reliability and can be responsibly trusted.

Anyways thats how I see it Tongue


RE: David Wilcock - Ali Quadir - 04-22-2009

I'd suggest that any body of information should be judged separate from it's source or method of transfer. This isn't exactly practical I admit. We often need quick judgements to guide us.

But if you want to know for really really sure. You'll need to analyze what was said. Cross reference it, hold it up against the light of your intuition. And try to poke holes in it.

I have no connection to Davids channelings. I've read some but can't find much interest. Only after he does the cross referencing and things begin to come together does it hold my interest. And in that case usually very much so.

The strong point for me about the man is that he supplies references in a very methodological almost scientific manner. So basically almost everything he says is checkable. The bad point is that some of the information he uses is so rare that even on the internet you can only find one or two sources and that makes cross referencing difficult. I've been trying to verify the Pacheco experiment. (Heat up beach sand till it is white hot, keep it in a sterilized container. And see life appear out of nothing) To me this experiment would be the smoking gun evidence that this stuff is real. But it's only posted on one site I can find and some other sites have copied it and link to each other. The problem is that all those sources essentially are based on one source. I would like to get my hands on the original research papers and know if it's been peer previewed. Until that happens it's just not scientific enough. One relatively unknown source of information just doesn't hold in the scientific community.

But overall, I think David is reliable because the "check it yourself" references he gives. I'm a critical bastard. And he's really one of the very few sources I find credible.


RE: David Wilcock - 3D Sunset - 04-22-2009

(04-22-2009, 02:44 PM)yossarian Wrote: The fact that the Ra material was received in a trance is immaterial because lots of dumb crap is received in a trance. Just the fact that someone goes into a trance does not lend credence to their material.

To be clear, I never said that all trance channeled material was reliable, I only said that reading the methods used by Ra to communicate through Carla in a trance seems to me to be the most effective way to minimize distortions in the communication.

Now, I wouldn't say that the group of Carla, Don, and Jim are the only ones that could, have, or will, ever be able to accomplish this feat, but I would be very surprised to find another such group or such high fidelity information.

'Ali Quadi Wrote:The strong point for me about the man is that he supplies references in a very methodological almost scientific manner. So basically almost everything he says is checkable.

I can't avoid the obvious dig at David's "pseudo-science". In this day and age of the internet , you can, I'm sure find sources that will support any contention that you may propose. The problem is finding those that have been independently verified and undergone rigorous peer review. As I scientist and engineer myself, I understand all too well the biases inherent in this process, but like democracy in spite of all it's shortcomings, it's still the best system we've found.

All that aside, the real problem that I have with David's attempts to "prove" his points, is that, to me at least, they are all really unprovable by design of the Logos. There will always be legitimate reasons to cast doubt on any of the proofs, thus leaving room for doubt to anyone who wishes to doubt. If you don't wish to doubt, then why spend the time trying to verify it? Just accept it and move on. More likely than not, you'll find yourself somewhere in between, believing some of his assertions and doubting others. So either way don't you ultimately find the answer inside yourself as to which resonates with you, and what you will take to heart? Save yourself the time of trying to verify or validate David's proofs, very few of them will hold up to modern scientific scrutiny. That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, just that without becoming an expert in the various fields, you'll never be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Ultimately, I don't expect to find proof of any of my foundational spiritual beliefs, but I also don't found any of them on transitory phenomena either.

Sorry, for getting on my soapbox, I'll step down now.

3D Sunset


RE: David Wilcock - yossarian - 04-23-2009

The ascension stuff doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, and David readily admits this, but the more mundane stuff DOES hold up, and David has made this more mundane stuff an important part of his work.

I'm talking about consciousness science. For instance Dean Radin has incredibly thorough, peer-reviewed, published, independently replicated, painstakingly detailed research on consciousness science showing that man is of an essentially incorporeal nature and proving that all the typical paranormal phenomena is real.

Dean Radin's work is more rigorous than 99% of the mainstream science done in any field. And he proves the truth of the "consciousness science" which (perhaps aside from the harvest) is the most important aspect of this whole shebang.

Dean Radin's global consciousness project is basically THE solution for all of humanity and is the main driving force behind all the good turns that the Earth has taken.

David Wilcock's "science" is really just building up on Dean Radin's stuff, combining it with wisdom teachings from secret societies, and putting it out there so people can get familiar and start using it to change the world.

If you want to convince an atheist of the paranormal, link him to Dean Radin's Google Tech Talk lecture that goes over painstaking supremely thorough hard science experiments that demonstrate the truth of the paranormal. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew )

The reason this stuff doesn't get out to the mainstream is because the media and large parts of academia are totally controlled.

That video is proof right there that the Logos does allow scientific proof of the paranormal. The scientific proof has been suppressed by the power structure, and atheists who look for first-hand proof don't find it because an atheist is, practically by definition, a walking psychic-dampening field.


RE: David Wilcock - Monica - 04-23-2009

(04-23-2009, 01:13 AM)yossarian Wrote: If you want to convince an atheist of the paranormal, link him to Dean Radin's Google Tech Talk lecture that goes over painstaking supremely thorough hard science experiments that demonstrate the truth of the paranormal. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew )

I have an atheist in the family - THANKS!!!


RE: David Wilcock - 3D Sunset - 04-23-2009

(04-23-2009, 01:13 AM)yossarian Wrote: That video is proof right there that the Logos does allow scientific proof of the paranormal. The scientific proof has been suppressed by the power structure, and atheists who look for first-hand proof don't find it because an atheist is, practically by definition, a walking psychic-dampening field.

What is "proof", my friend? To me proof, is merely a readily acceptable reason for accepting an assertion. When I prove that 2+2=4, or that gravity exists, I do not run the risk of upsetting many people's world views, and thus my proofs are readily (but still not universally) accepted. The story changes however, when one moves into proving things associated with spiritual beliefs. These proofs are not allowed by the Logos, because for them to exist could significantly infringe upon the free will of those that choose not to believe.

Thus you have the conspiracy theories, and your atheist effect. What more marvelous a system of checks and balances could the Logos have created than allowing non-belief to create a field through which psi effects cannot permeate, and providing a western scientific culture that considers the very question taboo? This, in my opinion, is not conspiracy, it is protection of free will.

As to the video and the work of Dean Radin, these are wonderful things that, IMHO, should be used to bolster the confidence of those that believe and to help persuade those that are curious. But to use them to attempt to convince a skeptic (or atheist), will result in one of two outcomes. Either they will dismiss it as rubbish, in which case you've wasted both of your time; or they will make a move toward belief with their free will quite possibly infringed. If the latter is the case, it is actually your polarity that would be affected. Better, I think, to use it to help guide the seekers, not convince the skeptics. Let the skeptics come around in their own time, there is an infinite amount of it available.

But that's just my opinion,

Love and Light,

3D Sunset


RE: David Wilcock - yossarian - 04-23-2009

I somewhat agree with you.

I do think "we are our brother's keeper" and part of this is offering to tell our brothers the truth.

You are absolutely right about the checks and balances, and wielding the power of that video, I have run into divine protections that have prevented me from giving it to certain people.

When this happens I don't press the issue. But at the same time, I don't repress my own tendency, who I am, which is to give out that video.

The way I see it, I am a walking video-dispensing machine, and energetically I have made this clear, and so when people's higher selves see me coming, if they don't want their atheist lower-self to be confronted by scientific proof of the paranormal, they make sure their lower-self walks the other way.

I've had the strangest things happen when I resolve to give that video to certain atheists.

But other atheists have been thoroughly grateful, it has been an awakening experience that they were ready for. They had been praying for a sign, and had opened themselves up, and the video came at the right time.

So you see, my own little ego can't know ahead of time which atheists are ready to be unplugged and which are not. By making it clear who I am (a video-dispensing person) consistently the higher realms find it easier to put me where I need to be, and steer me away from those places where I don't need to be.

I agree that lots of atheists (for instance) who are not ready to wake up to the paranormal find ways to dismiss and avoid the video, and when this happens I don't persist.

I really don't think it's possible to abridge free will per se. I think the fault is an attempt to bridge free will coming from a place of lack-of-love - attempting to bridge free will is the same thing as acting without awareness that we are all one being.

It's just like the Indian story of karma. Someone is starving, and it is his karma, so should you let him starve? No. Maybe it is your karma to feed him. Humans can't make judgments about karma, all humans can do is be themselves in the moment they find themselves.

Funny story though - one time there was an atheist on a message board I frequent who newly came to the board and started talking about how he would like to believe in the paranormal, but there is just no scientific proof and he talked a bit about how he has looked really hard but found no scientific proof. He seemed like a good guy to me. This plea by him moved me, so I made a strong resolve to do my best to walk him through the scientific proof, and to be persistent. I sent him the video, got his attention, and when at first he just ignored the video and didn't watch it I persisted and I tried to sell him on just loading it up and watching it, because here was the proof he had been looking for.

Energetically speaking, I was very determined, and I wasn't going to quit until he either told me to "F off" or watched the entire video all the way through. My determination was probably pretty clear on an energetic level, and he very quickly was banned from the forum by the moderators and there was no way for me to contact him.

So it's possible that my determination to wake this guy up necessitated him getting banned just to avoid me.

I think it's a mistake to avoid spreading evidence, to hold back the inborn tendency to want to spread the truth, out of the notion that it would be violating free will.

Maybe if my spiritual perception was better, I would never have been inspired in the first place to try and send that guy the video. But until my perception is at that point, I actually think it would be a bigger mistake to hold back this part of myself. I can't tell ahead of time who will accept it gratefully, and who will reject it, so I just offer it whenever I feel inspired to do so.


RE: David Wilcock - Monica - 04-23-2009

(04-23-2009, 10:34 AM)3D Sunset Wrote: What is "proof", my friend? To me proof, is merely a readily acceptable reason for accepting an assertion. When I prove that 2+2=4, or that gravity exists, I do not run the risk of upsetting many people's world views, and thus my proofs are readily (but still not universally) accepted. The story changes however, when one moves into proving things associated with spiritual beliefs. These proofs are not allowed by the Logos, because for them to exist could significantly infringe upon the free will of those that choose not to believe.

Thus you have the conspiracy theories, and your atheist effect. What more marvelous a system of checks and balances could the Logos have created than allowing non-belief to create a field through which psi effects cannot permeate, and providing a western scientific culture that considers the very question taboo? This, in my opinion, is not conspiracy, it is protection of free will.

As to the video and the work of Dean Radin, these are wonderful things that, IMHO, should be used to bolster the confidence of those that believe and to help persuade those that are curious. But to use them to attempt to convince a skeptic (or atheist), will result in one of two outcomes. Either they will dismiss it as rubbish, in which case you've wasted both of your time; or they will make a move toward belief with their free will quite possibly infringed. If the latter is the case, it is actually your polarity that would be affected. Better, I think, to use it to help guide the seekers, not convince the skeptics. Let the skeptics come around in there own time, there is an infinite amount of it available.

WOW, 3D, PROFOUND!

May I quote you?


RE: David Wilcock - Ali Quadir - 04-23-2009

(04-22-2009, 11:36 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:
'Ali Quadi Wrote:The strong point for me about the man is that he supplies references in a very methodological almost scientific manner. So basically almost everything he says is checkable.

I can't avoid the obvious dig at David's "pseudo-science". In this day and age of the internet , you can, I'm sure find sources that will support any contention that you may propose. The problem is finding those that have been independently verified and undergone rigorous peer review. As I scientist and engineer myself, I understand all too well the biases inherent in this process, but like democracy in spite of all it's shortcomings, it's still the best system we've found.
Actually I don't think we can find evidence for just ANY statement. If it seems like that perhaps we need to dig deeper. Smile Just because a website says something is true does not mean it is. The internet is filled with half truths and hearsay.

Like you I am also a scientist. And the philosophy of science and scientific method is one of my pet hobbies. So I hope I have some ability to discern between truth and fiction.

I agree that strictly scientifically speaking David's work isn't on all levels scientifically proven. It's why I said "Almost scientific". But he's making a strong effort in that direction. Which is why I believe it is good. Or as good as it gets without going into the community process.

Quote:All that aside, the real problem that I have with David's attempts to "prove" his points, is that, to me at least, they are all really unprovable by design of the Logos. There will always be legitimate reasons to cast doubt on any of the proofs, thus leaving room for doubt to anyone who wishes to doubt.
Science has this problem as well. The whole creationism debate at this point proves that people are free to disbelieve hard science. We do not have to worry about imposing on other peoples free will by desiring to make a hard case for some scientific or pseudo scientific statements.

Quote: If you don't wish to doubt, then why spend the time trying to verify it? Just accept it and move on. More likely than not, you'll find yourself somewhere in between, believing some of his assertions and doubting others. So either way don't you ultimately find the answer inside yourself as to which resonates with you, and what you will take to heart?
I appreciate the idea that our inner light will guide us. But have you been to any new age fairs lately? Smile The amount of garbage people are willing to believe is astonishing.

If you remember this lady Blossom Goodchild who predicted aliens would do a mass landing august last year? I think the woman believed it. I think she really channeled the information. And I did not believe it for a second because it did not fit most any other source of information out there. Including my own.

Did it resonate? I think the sheer amount of her followers proves that it did. Heck it even resonated with me.. Apart from the fact that I knew it would not be true. And I could state the reasons why it would not be true. I paradoxically found that I WANTED it to be true. So it resonated a lot.

The point is that resonance is not good enough. If we were able to just sense the answers to our questions we would not have developed science, philosophy and math. This intuition is part of the puzzle, but never the full answer.

Quote:Save yourself the time of trying to verify or validate David's proofs, very few of them will hold up to modern scientific scrutiny. That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, just that without becoming an expert in the various fields, you'll never be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Ultimately, I don't expect to find proof of any of my foundational spiritual beliefs, but I also don't found any of them on transitory phenomena either.
I believe in the principle "homo universalis". I'm addicted to learning stuff. So even if Davids work would turn out to be false. I'd have spent my time enjoying myself. I'll learn, I'll verify I'll keep looking for more knowledge. It's what I've done ever since I could read. And if you ask my parents who played the endless "Why" games with me. I did that forever.

So if verifying something requires me to become an expert in the field. Then I'll gladly do that. Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying the level of "professor" But a discerning mind who uses a lot of sources reads a lot of opinions uses some common sense and who tries to poke holes in his own theories can usually find answers. As they say: good enough for government work.

You and I both know that being a scientist is mainly about the ability to think critically. You have to have the mindset. The knowledge is secondary. If you know everything that the greatest scientist in the world knows. But don't think like a scientist then you're not a scientist. If you know nothing but think like a scientist. Then you'll be able to know when you don't have enough information to make a judgement and you'll know when you do.

Quote:Sorry, for getting on my soapbox, I'll step down now.
Please get on it again soon Smile Everyone is entitled to your opinion !


RE: David Wilcock - 3D Sunset - 04-23-2009

Ali Quadir Wrote:If you remember this lady Blossom Goodchild who predicted aliens would do a mass landing august last year? I think the woman believed it. I think she really channeled the information. And I did not believe it for a second because it did not fit most any other source of information out there. Including my own.

Did it resonate? I think the sheer amount of her followers proves that it did. Heck it even resonated with me.. Apart from the fact that I knew it would not be true. And I could state the reasons why it would not be true. I paradoxically found that I WANTED it to be true. So it resonated a lot.

The point is that resonance is not good enough. If we were able to just sense the answers to our questions we would not have developed science, philosophy and math. This intuition is part of the puzzle, but never the full answer.

I think it all depends upon what questions you are seeking answers to. If you are seeking answers to transitory questions about our 3rd Density illusion becoming a 4th Density Illusion, then I suggest that your search will not be successful. Your search will end when it is inundated by the unexpected tsunami of change that will occur at the appropriate time (or alternatively, perhaps, you will simply spend the rest of your life searching until it ends, and you walk the steps of light). I think that a lot of David's focus has been on transitory topics, and I contend that all that effort has been in vain. I will admit to a certain entertainment value in reading some of his assertions, but I put no stock in them. They are simply fun to read and I spend no more effort trying to validate them than I do validating science fiction.

On the other hand, if you are seeking answers as to the nature of consciousness and your place in the universe, then he your inner guidance is crucial. These questions are ageless and timeless, and ones for which your inner guidance is most attuned.

I for one, am perfectly content to concede that I have absolutely no idea when/where or how the transition will take place. I cannot control this and have no desire to. What I can do is productively invest my time and energy into ensuring that I am ready when the time comes (or when my time comes, should I precede it), and in providing whatever support I can to the Logos to make the transition as satisfactory as possible.

So, I offer my love and light to the world and make sure that the last words my wife and children hear when the go to bed each night - and the first words they hear when they wake each morning - are my soft whisper of "I love you".

This resonates with me quite well.

3D Sunset


RE: David Wilcock - Monica - 04-23-2009

(04-23-2009, 11:07 AM)yossarian Wrote: I do think "we are our brother's keeper" and part of this is offering to tell our brothers the truth.

You are absolutely right about the checks and balances, and wielding the power of that video, I have run into divine protections that have prevented me from giving it to certain people.

When this happens I don't press the issue. But at the same time, I don't repress my own tendency, who I am, which is to give out that video.

The way I see it, I am a walking video-dispensing machine, and energetically I have made this clear, and so when people's higher selves see me coming, if they don't want their atheist lower-self to be confronted by scientific proof of the paranormal, they make sure their lower-self walks the other way.

I've had the strangest things happen when I resolve to give that video to certain atheists.

But other atheists have been thoroughly grateful, it has been an awakening experience that they were ready for. They had been praying for a sign, and had opened themselves up, and the video came at the right time.

So you see, my own little ego can't know ahead of time which atheists are ready to be unplugged and which are not. By making it clear who I am (a video-dispensing person) consistently the higher realms find it easier to put me where I need to be, and steer me away from those places where I don't need to be.

I agree that lots of atheists (for instance) who are not ready to wake up to the paranormal find ways to dismiss and avoid the video, and when this happens I don't persist.

I really don't think it's possible to abridge free will per se. I think the fault is an attempt to bridge free will coming from a place of lack-of-love - attempting to bridge free will is the same thing as acting without awareness that we are all one being.

It's just like the Indian story of karma. Someone is starving, and it is his karma, so should you let him starve? No. Maybe it is your karma to feed him. Humans can't make judgments about karma, all humans can do is be themselves in the moment they find themselves.

Funny story though - one time there was an atheist on a message board I frequent who newly came to the board and started talking about how he would like to believe in the paranormal, but there is just no scientific proof and he talked a bit about how he has looked really hard but found no scientific proof. He seemed like a good guy to me. This plea by him moved me, so I made a strong resolve to do my best to walk him through the scientific proof, and to be persistent. I sent him the video, got his attention, and when at first he just ignored the video and didn't watch it I persisted and I tried to sell him on just loading it up and watching it, because here was the proof he had been looking for.

Energetically speaking, I was very determined, and I wasn't going to quit until he either told me to "F off" or watched the entire video all the way through. My determination was probably pretty clear on an energetic level, and he very quickly was banned from the forum by the moderators and there was no way for me to contact him.

So it's possible that my determination to wake this guy up necessitated him getting banned just to avoid me.

I think it's a mistake to avoid spreading evidence, to hold back the inborn tendency to want to spread the truth, out of the notion that it would be violating free will.

Maybe if my spiritual perception was better, I would never have been inspired in the first place to try and send that guy the video. But until my perception is at that point, I actually think it would be a bigger mistake to hold back this part of myself. I can't tell ahead of time who will accept it gratefully, and who will reject it, so I just offer it whenever I feel inspired to do so.

Well said! I agree 100%!

And, I would add, sometimes if the person isn't ready for the info, they will watch the video (or read the book or whatever) and still not see it. Which always blows my mind; there it is, right in front of their noses, and they still don't see it. Why? Because they simply don't want to know. They want to stay stuck in their paradigm. So even if we do make an error in judgment and push it on them, they'll find a way to wiggle out of seeing the obvious, if their free will precludes them from opening their eyes.

I think as long as we aspire to operate in love and answer the call of those who seek what we have to offer, we shouldn't worry too much about inadvertently offering info to those who would not choose it. I would rather offer the info and have them refuse it, then to not offer it when it might have been helpful to them. I agree that we can trust that the other self's Higher Self will prevail and find a way to block the unwanted awakening if they don't want it.

Obviously, if we find ourselves getting too pushy, then that's a sign to back off. But until their refusal is apparent, I think just making the offer is appropriate.
(04-23-2009, 02:39 PM)3D Sunset Wrote: I for one, am perfectly content to concede that I have absolutely no idea when/where or how the transition will take place. I cannot control this and have no desire to. What I can do is productively invest my time and energy into ensuring that I am ready when the time comes (or when my time comes, should I precede it), and in providing whatever support I can to the Logos to make the transition as satisfactory as possible.

Beautifully said, 3D! I agree completely.


Paranormal acceptance. - C-JEAN - 04-23-2009

Hi, para fans.

Someone said:
". . .convince an atheist of the paranormal. . ."

I just checked the definition of atheist, in a dictionary,
and "atheist" is only related to "deity".
So, I don't understand why anyone thinks an
atheist can't accept the paranormal" ? I do, accept it!

With the rest of the universe, nothing is impossible, right ?

An atheist can have "intentions",
http://theintentionexperiment.ning.com/
can dream, can have intuitions, can have premonitions,
can create his own reality,
can. . .etc. . .etc. . . as anyone else, right ?
See my signature. B-)

Blue skies.


RE: David Wilcock - yossarian - 04-23-2009

What's the word for someone who disbelieves in all paranormal abilities and basically agrees with James Randi and thinks everything is just a collection of matter, or whatever?

A materialist maybe?

I guess atheist is the wrong word, but I don't really know of a better word. "Materialist" sounds like someone who is obsessed with having a big car, big house, etc.


RE: David Wilcock - fairyfarmgirl - 04-23-2009

I would call this Secular beliefs.

I once dated someone like that the relationship was devoid of any joy. Where is the joy and magic of life when you just think everything is a biological mechanism devoid of any soul.

fairyfarmgirl


RE: David Wilcock - Ali Quadir - 04-24-2009

(04-23-2009, 02:39 PM)3D Sunset Wrote: So, I offer my love and light to the world and make sure that the last words my wife and children hear when the go to bed each night - and the first words they hear when they wake each morning - are my soft whisper of "I love you".

This resonates with me quite well.
Obviously it would, and your wife probably loves it too.

However, you basically state and I quote the philosopher Slartibartfast: "Perhaps I'm old and tired, but I think that the chances of finding out what's actually going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say, "Hang the sense of it," and keep yourself busy. I'd much rather be happy than right any day."

Which is obviously a very wise thing to say! Yet also not very adventurous.

Philosophy that is capable of understanding 4d has been in place on earth for millennia. We know this because what we hear about the philosophy of these ET's who supposedly are 4d or higher is compatible. Even if we do not have any 4d experiences. At least we know we have the capacity to learn to understand.

To say it briefly. The chances of us finding out what is going are not as remote as you seem to think. They will only seem remote because we do not try.

In science you know for a fact before you start out your life filling career that at the end of it you'll have more questions than at the start. This is the nature of science. And in spite of this fact scientists keep choosing to invest time and learn more.

You don't have to invest the required time. As you say if you follow your resonance you'll probably be fine aswell. But I don't share the idea that it's pointless to try to understand our situation.

Now I don't know if 2012 will be a drastic shift or if people will massively be ignorant of any changes around that time. I don't know if we'll all vanish in puffs of smoke. Or fly off to heaven, or whatever. But I do know a few things.

I'm partly expecting the changes to be so subtle that many of us don't even know about them. I'm certainly expecting to be around in 2014.


RE: David Wilcock - 3D Sunset - 04-24-2009

Ali Quadir Wrote:Which is obviously a very wise thing to say! Yet also not very adventurous.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. Funny how the same actions could be considered both wise or foolish depending upon the motivation of the person "doing" and the perspective of the "viewer". There is great freedom to be found by invoking the archetype of the Fool. Having made this "choice", I am free to pursue life as it unfolds, enjoying the spontaneity of each moment, which is providing adventure enough for me.

All this is not to say that I don't have my thoughts and some expectations about what is to come, but I've found that my real interests have evolved more into seeing the underlying fabric of our shared illusion, and how it interacts and interplays with the metaphysical world. Hence my thread, which has fallen into some disrepair of late, exploring he works of Dewey B. Larson. If you'd like a real mental challenge to your scientific mind, then I highly recommend exploring Dewey's works.

Bring_4th_Monica Wrote:I would rather offer the info and have them refuse it, then to not offer it when it might have been helpful to them. I agree that we can trust that the other self's Higher Self will prevail and find a way to block the unwanted awakening if they don't want it.

I agree in concept, one should bear in mind that even the higher self is restricted by the free will of the entity during its veiled 3D incarnation. So, I would simply remind everyone again, of the importance of proceeding with care.

On a related topic, an interesting revelation came to me in a dream last night. In reality there is a universally scientifically recognized psi effect that everyone is familiar with. It's called the placebo effect. This is a topic easily broached with anyone and I think it's a great way to get their mental gears turning.

If you look at any clinical study to determine efficacy of a drug, medical device or procedure, they must all under-go placebo controlled double-blind studies. This is in order to account for the unexplained and down right irritating habit that people have of getting better just because they think they should. As a matter of fact, the placebo effect is almost always much greater than the effect due to the new medical innovation.

There has also, by necessity, been a great amount of research done in quantifying and isolating factors which enhance the placebo effect. That is why, for example, drug studies are double-blind (indicating that both the patient and the health provider do not know whether or not the patient is receiving a placebo), because studies showed that knowledge of who is getting the placebo even by the health care provider, affected the efficacy of the placebo and the drug. (Interestingly, many studies are now even triple-blind, meaning that the company funding the research is not aware of who gets the placebo.. any guess as to why?). Here are other factors that have actually been shown to enhance the placebo effect:

# Color. Red, yellow, or orange, “hot colored” tablets work better as stimulants, and “cool” colored ones--blue green, or purple--as depressants.
# Big rather than small capsules.
# Number. Two tablets are more effective than one.
# Branded proprietary tablets are more effective than unbranded ones.
# High price. Telling people they are taking a novel form of codeine (actually a placebo) that costs $2.50 rather than 10 cents increased the number of people reporting pain relief from 61% to 85.4%
# Injections have larger effect than pills.
# Devices are more effective than inert pills.
# If an inert substance is pre-associated in past experience with a real effect.
# Placebos administered by authority figures such as shamans, general practitioners and other trusted figures may also be more powerful than when the psychological or spiritual authority figure is absent.
# Adherence in regularly taking them (this parallels the benefits of adherence in regularly taking active treatment)
# The enthusiastic supportive attitude of the doctor about their effectiveness. In one study, the response to a placebo increased from 44% to 62% when the doctor gave them with “warmth, attention, and confidence”

This all clearly and unequivocally points to a consciousness effect (even by a third party) on the healing process of humans. No surprise to us, but it's gotta make a mechanist (my word for it, yossarian), really think.

Personally, I find it hilarious that drug companies have to go to such extremes to remove the placebo effect from their studies, when for almost every drug that has ever undergone clinical trials, the placebo effect is far greater than the effectiveness of the drug under study. Unfortunately, the companies can't patent a placebo, but once the drugs are on the market they are more than happy to take credit for patients whose improvement might well be from the placebo effect and not their drug.

So at the same time that western science avoids the taboo of researching the psi effect, they are spending billions of dollars annually to remove the elephant from the room without ever acknowledging its existence.

Food for thought,

3D Sunset


RE: David Wilcock - fairyfarmgirl - 04-24-2009

(04-24-2009, 10:14 AM)3D Sunset Wrote:
Ali Quadir Wrote:Which is obviously a very wise thing to say! Yet also not very adventurous.



Personally, I find it hilarious that drug companies have to go to such extremes to remove the placebo effect from their studies, when for almost every drug that has ever undergone clinical trials, the placebo effect is far greater than the effectiveness of the drug under study. Unfortunately, the companies can't patent a placebo, but once the drugs are on the market they are more than happy to take credit for patients whose improvement cannot be distinguished from the placebo effect.

So at the same time that western science avoids the taboo of researching the psi effect, they are spending billions of dollars annually to remove the elephant from the room without ever acknowledging its existence.

Food for thought,

3D Sunset

In Plant Shamanism, any plant will work for the prescribed illness if prepared correctly. Thus, any tool works for healing if the healee is open to being healed. Health is a natural state of being that is ever present awaiting our openness and welcoming of this present state of being. The same goes for PEACE and LOVE and JOY--- these states of being are ever present awaiting our opening and welcoming of their expression.

fairyfarmgirl


RE: David Wilcock - Monica - 04-24-2009

(04-24-2009, 10:14 AM)3D Sunset Wrote: # Devices (sham acupuncture) are more effective than inert pills.

Very interesting!

May I ask, though, why you referred to acupuncture as sham?