What Does The Harvest Really Mean?

[rva_jeremy]

I feel no need to defend the material or the philosophy; argument over unprovable topics is rather pointless.  Let's just make sure we're all being respectful and recognizing our roles as mirrors for one another.  In the spirit of being as transparent and open as I can be, I'll try to answer some of your questions, Dante.  Please consider what we have to say as we consider what you have to say.

How much do you trust Ra?

I don't really know an entity personally whose name is Ra.  I've never met them.

But I've never met you either.  Upon what basis, then, should I judge the veracity of your information?

"Resonance" would be my answer.  The information resonates within me, or doesn't, because of the type of thing that I am, I suppose.

Therefore, it doesn't bother me at all if the information does not resonate with another; I can no more ask them to be something different than they can ask that of me.  It's similar to what Carl Jung says in The Undiscovered Self:

The religious person enjoys a great advantage when it comes to answering the crucial question that hangs over our time like a threat: he has a clear idea of the way his subjective existence is grounded in his relation to "God." I put the word "God" in quotes in order to indicate that we are dealing with an anthropomorphic idea whose dynamism and symbolism are filtered through the medium of the unconscious psyche. Anyone who wants to can at least draw near to the source of such experiences, no matter whether he believes in God or not. Without this approach it is only in rare cases that we witness those miraculous conversions of which Paul's Damascus experience is the prototype. That religious experiences exist no longer needs proof. But it will always remain doubtful whether what metaphysics and theology call God and the gods is the real ground of these experiences. The question is idle, actually, and answers itself by reason of the subjectively overwhelming numinosity of the experience. Anyone who has had it is _seized_ by it and therefore not in a position to indulge in fruitless metaphysical or epistemological speculations. Absolute certainty brings its own evidence and has no need of anthropomorphic proofs.
(emphasis mine}

Since we cannot meaningfully duel over those things that are subjective, unprovable, but that we are nevertheless siezed by, all we can do is respect the beliefs and experiences that have seized each other, recognizing that that is a form of self-knowledge to be cultivated and encouraged, not nitpicked and denied.

One more thing: I acknowledge that some of the aspects of the Ra contact have the tinge of "space opera".  These details, to my mind, don't have to be exactly right, because they are not the heart of the Law of One.  Dante, is it the message of oneness that you have a problem with, or the messenger in Ra?  If the latter, then I don't think you have much to worry about.  None of us are worshipping at the altar of Ra.  We are trying to understand things better through understanding ourselves better, and there are as many ways of constructing that project as there are grains of sand on the beach.