6D Wanderers: 3D Lessons?

[unity100]

You didn't address the fact that Ra used the term intensity of light in regards to the pre-veil harvest.

Prior to the veiling process the measurement would be that of an entity walking up a set of your stairs, each of which was imbued with a certain quality of light. The stair upon which an entity stopped would be either third-density light or fourth-density light. Between the two stairs lies the threshold. To cross that threshold is difficult. There is resistance at the edge, shall we say, of each density. The faculty of faith or will needs to be understood, nourished, and developed in order to have an entity which seeks past the boundary of third density. Those entities which do not do their homework, be they ever so amiable, shall not cross. It was this situation which faced the Logoi prior to the veiling process being introduced into the experiential continuum of third density.

May we ask if there are any brief queries at this working?

i dont see 'intensity' anywhere here.

I don't think Ra did talk about two different types of harvest. The steps of light quote from session 82 is basically just a restatement of the intensity of light quote from session 6.

if they were just the same and a 'restatement', the two harvests wouldnt be differentiated. they are clearly are. i dont know how differently this can be put into words. you dont talk about different harvests, a differentiation, if there is not a difference.

i dont even know how to respond. 'restatement' ?

Furthermore, your argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. The requirements for harvest are set by the Logos, not by the sub-Logos. The sub-Logoi can decide to veil or not to veil in their design of third density, but it whether they veil or not doesn't change the nature of the harvest. As Ra said, "the requirements of harvest are set." (89.45) And again, "the biasing mechanisms cannot change the requirements for achieving harvestability either in the positive or in the negative sense." (90.23). I couldn't quickly find a quote to this effect, but it's clear that just as the biasing mechanisms can't change the requirements for achieving harvestability, neither can the veiling or lack thereof.

there is no difference in between logos or sub logos, what we know is, what one discovers is available to all of them. and what we know is, there are still planets close to galactic core that do not employ veils.

it is possible that these planets too, now employ the intensity of light, postveil harvest method.

however what we know for sure is, at some point, veil was discovered, and new methods were developed.

i dont see how this is relevant to there being two different in any case.

veiling can change a lot of things, however. before the veil, ra says there was a very long 3d, a very long 4d, and 'when the entities started seeing the creator', a very fast (comparably) route to 8d. now, there are 3, 4, 5th, 6th densities that take their due time.

apparently, veil changed a lot of things.

You seem to have formed the idea that the lessons of third density were different before the veil from what they are now. This is incorrect. From session 82:

"The first beings of mind, body, and spirit were not complex. The experience of mind/body/spirits at the beginning of this octave of experience was singular. There was no third-density forgetting. There was no veil. The lessons of third density are predestined by the very nature of the vibratory rates experienced during this particular density and by the nature of the quantum jump to the vibratory experiences of fourth density."

And again:

"Your queries seem to be pursuing the possibility/probability that the mechanisms of experience in third density are different if a mind/body/spirit is attempting them rather than a mind/body/spirit complex. The nature of third density is constant. Its ways are to be learned the same now and ever. Thusly, no matter what form the entity facing these lessons, the lessons and mechanisms are the same."

And again:

"82.21 Questioner: Then even though, from our point of view, there was great evolutionary experience it was deemed at some point by the evolving Logos that an experiment to create a greater experience was appropriate. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and may benefit from comment. The Logos is aware of the nature of the third-density requirement for what you have called graduation. All the previous, if you would use this term, experiments, although resulting in many experiences, lacked what was considered the crucial ingredient; that is, polarization. There was little enough tendency for experience to polarize entities that entities repeated habitually the third-density cycles many times over. It was desired that the potential for polarization be made more available."

well, i didnt 'form' this idea. according to the quotes we have, there are two different harvest methods for preveil and postveil. had there been no change, they wouldnt have explained to us as being different, and there would be NO need to differentiate in between preveil and postveil harvest.

im missing your point. what exactly are you proposing ? despite Ra has explained that there are two different harvest methods for postveil and preveil, you are saying that there isnt ?

and, for that end, taking the postveil harvest as a 'restatement' of the preveil, and, equating intensity of light, with quality (vibration or frequency) of light ?

it seems so, and lets say that it is as such. then, there would be no need to classify harvests as preveil, and postveil. ra does this classification. there would be no need to explain them differently, because they would be the same.

however they arent.

moreover, the red underlined part, is important, and answer to your individual quotes of the last part - the difference of preveil and postveil experience, is emphasis on polarization. there hasnt been a negative polarization preveil, there is now. thus, apparently, the harvest method has been arranged as such, if we are seeking for any reason for the both being different. note that, im not saying they might not be different, they are clearly different, because it is differentiated in the material clearly as preveil and postveil.