a bit of love for Scott Mandelker

[6D longing]

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