______

[Ankh]

85.4 Questioner: What is the nature of this crisis?

Ra: I am Ra. The nature of this crisis is the determination of the relative polarity of your companion and yourselves. You are in the position of being in the third-density illusion and consequently having the conscious collective magical ability of the neophyte, whereas your companion is most adept. However, the faculties of will and faith and the calling to the light have been used by this group to the exclusion of any significant depolarization from the service-to-others path.

If your companion can possibly depolarize this group it must do so and that quickly, for in this unsuccessful attempt at exploring the wisdom of separation it is encountering some depolarization. This shall continue. Therefore, the efforts of your companion are pronounced at this space/time and time/space nexus.

85.5 Questioner: I am totally aware of the lack of necessity or even rational need for naming of entities or things. I was wondering if this particular entity had a name just so that we could increase our efficiency of communicating with respect to him. Does he have a name?

Ra: I am Ra. Yes.

85.6 Questioner: Would it be magically bad for us to know that name, or would it make no difference?

Ra: I am Ra. It would make a difference.

85.7 Questioner: What would the difference be?

Ra: I am Ra. If one wishes to have power over an entity it is an aid to know that entity’s name. If one wishes no power over an entity but wishes to collect that entity into the very heart of one’s own being it is well to forget the naming. Both processes are magically viable. Each is polarized in a specific way. It is your choice.

Hint, hint. Ra knows full well what polarity they are striving for. I find it odd to consider that they suggest the mere fact of knowing the entity's name would be 'polarized a specific way'. I presume because naming is an act of separation? It is true that generally Ra doesn't use names but rather functions like 'instrument', 'questioner', etc,

Anyways, these times where Ra offers a choice, but it's really obvious what the group's intention was I find peculiar.

And in another post you stated:

"There is also the fact of their implying that the most positive route is to simply love the entity at all times, and thus refrained from sharing its identity, even when Don asked they made a statement which implied that if they knew its name that that in itself would tempt them to the negative path".

Let me to walk you through these Q/As from my point of view:

"85.5 Questioner: I am totally aware of the lack of necessity or even rational need for naming of entities or things. I was wondering if this particular entity had a name just so that we could increase our efficiency of communicating with respect to him. Does he have a name?

Ra: I am Ra. Yes"

My understanding of the above is that since the group is striving for the positive polarity, they wish to be of service to their negatively polarized friend, but don't really know how. So Don comes up with the idea that maybe this entity has a name and if that might help them in their striving of being of service, and asks Ra if it does. Yes, it does, answers Ra. Through the whole contact Ra have been honest at all times, in my experience. And when they didn't know the answer, they said that they didn't know. Or when they guessed, they said that it was just a theory. Or when it was a violation of free will, they said that they couldn't answer because of that. Moving on.

"85.6 Questioner: Would it be magically bad for us to know that name, or would it make no difference?

Ra: I am Ra. It would make a difference."

Most of the people, myself included, would after understanding that this entity has a name, ask for that name. This is a normal progression of any conversation. "Does this dude has a name?" "Yes." "What's his name?" In that case the curiosity would have killed this cat. But nope. Not Don. This is where he gets highest scoring from me at least. Instead of jumping into the natural second question of knowing that name, Don asks *if it would make any difference, magically, for them to know that name*. So what should Ra answer? Lie? Don asks. Ra answers. Moving on.

"85.7 Questioner: What would the difference be?

Ra: I am Ra. If one wishes to have power over an entity it is an aid to know that entity’s name. If one wishes no power over an entity but wishes to collect that entity into the very heart of one’s own being it is well to forget the naming. Both processes are magically viable. Each is polarized in a specific way. It is your choice."

Again, Don takes highest points for his questions. He asks about what difference it would make to know the name of their fifth density friend of negative polarity. Ra explains. Again, what should Ra answer to these specific questions than the truth?

As you can see here, Ra didn't refrain from sharing that name. *Don refrained from asking it*.

I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that there are times in your other posts where you paraphrase statements from the Ra material which are not correct. I am not talking about your opinions and understandings, because these can not be correct or incorrect, but what you say Ra stated. I believe that before writing about what Ra said or didn't say, perhaps it is better to look that statement up first before writing about it?