Post-harvest continuity of consciousness

[Tenet Nosce]

Is that not what this forum is designed for? Discussion of the material?

Of course. But really it is no different than a discussion group in college. If a student hasn't read the material beforehand, what would be the value in them discussing it? They have nothing to add to the discussion but confusion, wrong ideas, misunderstanding of terms, etc. All they are doing is stealing valuable time and attention away from those students who did do their homework, and are prepared for class.

Or suppose we are sitting at the pub having a brew and you ask me what I thought about the football game last Sunday. I launch into a diatribe against the defensive line on the losing team. Yet from my words you discern that, not only did I never even see the game in the first place, but that I don't even understand the fundamental rules of football. What then is the point of my speaking to you? If you want to discuss the game- surely it would be better to go find somebody who actually watched it, and who is familiar with the rules.

At the very least- it would be considerate of me to first inform you that I didn't watch the game, and that I know almost nothing about football, before I launch into my diatribe.

Now when you say that I am in the same boat as all others that have not read the material, are you suggesting that it is not appropriate to discuss or challenge interpretations unless one has studied the Material in its complete fullness?

Basically, yes. The problem is that if one hasn't read the material, they don't even stand a chance at discerning between somebody's interpretation of it, and what it actually says. Even if we have read the material- it is still very difficult to extricate the "Confederation Philosophy" from our own distortions and biases. For example, it took me about fifteen years to disentangle certain distorted interpretations that I had unquestioningly accepted from others.

There are countless hours and endless energy available to spend arguing with other members in the forum, making points and theories, becoming irritated and offended with each other, then kissing and making up, but "not enough time" to read the very books for which this forum was created to discuss. I find that curious.

Put it this way- how would you feel if this were a forum about The Emerald Tablets, and I were bouncing around arguing with people about it, all the while it being clear to you that I never even read The Emerald Tablets, and that I am repeatedly attributing ideas to Thoth that were never theirs in the first place? How would you respond to such a scene?

I am a little confused there.

Well, of course you are! Because you have taken certain people's words for Ra's words from the very beginning. You have railed on and on against this STS/STO meme, not realizing that it wasn't Ra's idea in the first place. Yes- they talked about it. But that's only because they were repeatedly asked about it.

So, in the end, you are continuing to make the same sort of error that all these other people discussing the material are making by failing to discern between which ideas in the material originated from L/L, and which originated from Ra.

But you are right that it is possible, because of the fact that I have not read ALL of the material, that I may yet come to realize something different.

I imagine that you would. But we will never know unless you actually do it.

I actually hope that turns out to be the case, because from the beginning I have hoped that the Ra Material would further support The teachings of Thoth. The similar offering of congruent information is one of the things which I am always in search of to add credence to my own understanding and the effort to build the puzzle.

I think that they do go together, but need to be taken at different levels.

But I do not understand why you would think I do that in the first place, when you know how often I deliberately delve into the dynamics and intricacies of the material in my discussions. I, of all people, am extremely wary of personal interpretations, and rely heavily on my own discernment and connection with the Material..

Only because I have seen you do it, and furthermore because I believe you are sincere which means you are not doing it on purpose simply to be contradictory, or as some immature form of attention-seeking behavior. I have seen you attribute certain ideas to Ra which are not really their ideas, but somebody else's distorted version of their ideas. Since I observe that you cannot tell the difference between these in your responses, I have been led to the conclusion that you haven't read the material in its entirety, else you wouldn't become confused in this way.

But I cannot expect you to take my word for it, I can only suggest that you give the material a close read for yourself, and then see if I am right or not.

---

Yes. So do you think that when Ra "introduces" a concept, that the expressive vocabulary originated from Ra? No. It originated primarily from the group, and perhaps sometimes from the "planetary mind". For example, when Carla had read George Hunt Williamson, and Ra was searching for the closest concept match to "an entity with native vibration above 3D" they found the term "wanderer". And when Ra uses "time/space" and "space/time" they selected them from Don's reading of Dewey Larson. (and Larson from Alexander).

Yes. All I was attempting to point out was that the STO/STS meme was first introduced in Session 7, not Session 17. And where it was spoken of was in a reply, not a query. It was just a technical point, which is why I said your remark wasn't entirely true. But it wasn't entirely false, either. The overarching idea behind your point is still valid.

What I think is more relevant:

A. The STS/STO meme originated in a reply to a query about the Orion group
B. Ra unambiguously said that "service to others results in service to self"
C. People continue to act as if they never said this