Session 001

[isis]

What is it, my friends, to take thought? Took you then thought today? What thoughts did you think today? What thoughts were part of the original thought today? In how many of your thoughts did the creation abide? Was love contained? And was service freely given?

We are working here without a context (from the Ra material, at least) of what “the Original Thought” is. So what is the “Original Thought” in this context?

Also, does Ra mean to imply that some thoughts are not part of the original thought? In earlier channelings, the original thought was referred to ask love. If love is in all things, are there any thoughts in which love is not contained? Is a thought not part of the original thought if service is not freely given from or within that thought?

Ra states that The Confederation has only one important statement & it's that everything is part of the one original thought...It confused me that after stating that they went on to ask, "What thoughts were part of the original thought today?" but I don't think they meant to imply that some thoughts are not a part of the original thought bc that would contradict what they consider to be their only important statement.

You are not part of a material universe. You are part of a thought.

The material universe exists, and we appear to be a part of it. Is Ra implying that thought precedes material? (I think so.)

I think so, too...but then I'm left wondering: Can anything precede anything, in the grand scheme of things? Some things can obviously seem to precede other things.

Since Ra states that the nature of all manifestation is illusory, I'm assuming that would even include the one original thought, it makes sense to me that the thought illusion would (seem to) precede the material universe illusion.

What is the one original thought, anyway? A combination of everything manifestable?

You move your body, your mind, and your spirit in somewhat eccentric patterns for you have not completely grasped the concept that you are part of the original thought.

What is eccentric about the patterns of our movement? In grasping the concept that we are part of the original thought, how does that result in less eccentric movements? What's an example of contrast between more eccentric and less eccentric in this context?

If it's a part of the original thought then it must have already happened - in the beginning / in true simultaneity? IMO, our movements are considered especially eccentric when our actions are clearly showing we're forgetting there's no disharmony/imperfection.

I think that when we're coming closer to grasping the concept that we're part of the original thought (that it's all been done before) we're coming closer to realizing that all is well & consequently moving in less eccentric patterns.

The ones moving in less eccentric patterns probably aren't the ones getting worked up on a continuous + frequent basis about the cruelty/suffering/et cetera that's currently happening on this planet.

The identity of the vibration Ra is our identity.

I don't really understand this sentence. What does this mean? If this could be said in other words, how would you say it?

I would say it this way: We are this guy. Hence our name.

You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things.

What is Ra referring to here? Perhaps the question which was lost? If not, what is meant by "you are not speaking of..."?

The question that was lost is what I think.

We do not concern ourselves with the conditions which bring about harvest.

Why does Ra refer to the planetary changes as “conditions which bring about harvest”? This is an odd way to refer to planetary changes, as later in the material Ra seems to imply that planetary changes are a result of harvest, not something that brings about harvest.

To die is be harvested is what I got from that. Earth changes commonly cause many deaths. The planetary changes could be the result of harvest &/or bring about the harvest, the way I see it.

Firstly, you must understand that the distinction between yourself and others is not visible to us.

How then is it possible for Ra to find the group? How can Ra refer to individuals? If there is no visible distinction, why can Ra refer to these distinctions?

That confused me, too. Maybe when Ra has been channeled into the instrument then they can distinguish from there & only there?

However, our very being is hopefully a poignant example of both the necessity and the near-hopelessness of attempting to teach.

What does Ra mean by this? Are they referring to their simple existence? How or why is their “very being” a poignant example of both necessity and near-hopelessness of attempting to teach?

I think maybe they're referring to their present existence at the time which was a voice thru an instrument. 'Necessity' bc it's possible & 'near-hopelessness' bc how few will be reached + illuminated by their communications.

Therefore, we offer the question back to you to state that indeed it is the only activity worth doing: to learn/teach or teach/learn.

Why would Ra say that this is the only activity worth doing? Not a single other activity is worth doing? Healing? Meditation? There must be some other activity worth doing in infinity.

IMO, almost every activity can fall into the category of learning or teaching - including the ones you've mentioned. (I'll explain how I think that healing & meditating can fall into those categories upon request.)

Also, how does one learn what will happen in the next moment of their life? By simply existing. So, to me, by simply existing we are engaging (somewhat) in the only activity worth doing.

Or maybe I'm confused about what learn/teach / teach/learn means...