I actually completely agree with you, on everything but the definition of "reliable"
The fact that the Ra material was received in a trance is immaterial because lots of dumb crap is received in a trance. Just the fact that someone goes into a trance does not lend credence to their material.
Instead, what I especially agree with you about is where you said this:
I have the same experience. Reading David and Carla's work, and judging entirely on the intuitive feeling of resonance, I get a lower quality from their channels in comparison to Ra. To me, LOO is higher quality because of the fact that it resonates, not due to any transmission details.
David Wilcock himself is actually the first to admit that he has had numerous negative influences coming through on his channelings, and if you dig into his archive he makes sure to point out a lot of places that he believes were negatively influenced.
This is a testament to the theory that says channeling alone and channeling consciously are more difficult than channeling unconsciously with a group. So it makes sense from a theoretical perspective, but you can't point this arrow both ways.
I just think it's wrong to use anything BUT the message ITSELF as a judge for truth when it comes to channeled material. So the fact that David and Carla's conscious channeling are conscious can take away from their reliability, but at the same time it doesn't lend extra reliability to Ra, who already has basically zero reliability.
I guess the way I see it is channeled info starts at 0 reliability and only goes down from there. My 5 year old nephew has a reliability of, say, 10, while the best channeled material has a reliability of 0, and typical channeled material a reliability of -30 or something :p
Point is, channeled stuff is almost impossible to trust because something that resonates with you is, at best, a reflection of your own highest-realized self, meaning the best part of yourself that you have managed to dig up, which really isn't your higher self per se but just a distortion of some of your higher self. Trusting your own as-of-now-highest-realization is good, but one should recognize that it is not an authority but rather a reflection.
Other humans can act as authorities and trust-worthy companions in ways that channeled material can never do, and so this is why it's important in my opinion to also look to human traditions and human masters who give their testimony. The testimony of a living human being who has personally experienced the divine is far more valuable than a channeled entity because a human being in the flesh can be ascribed true reliability and can be responsibly trusted.
Anyways thats how I see it
The fact that the Ra material was received in a trance is immaterial because lots of dumb crap is received in a trance. Just the fact that someone goes into a trance does not lend credence to their material.
Instead, what I especially agree with you about is where you said this:
3D Sunset Wrote:For me personally, I feel so many distortions when reading any consciously channeled material that I frequently can't find the real intended message at all. Thus, much of David's as well as Carla's other material doesn't resonate with me because there's just too much noise in the message.
I have the same experience. Reading David and Carla's work, and judging entirely on the intuitive feeling of resonance, I get a lower quality from their channels in comparison to Ra. To me, LOO is higher quality because of the fact that it resonates, not due to any transmission details.
David Wilcock himself is actually the first to admit that he has had numerous negative influences coming through on his channelings, and if you dig into his archive he makes sure to point out a lot of places that he believes were negatively influenced.
This is a testament to the theory that says channeling alone and channeling consciously are more difficult than channeling unconsciously with a group. So it makes sense from a theoretical perspective, but you can't point this arrow both ways.
I just think it's wrong to use anything BUT the message ITSELF as a judge for truth when it comes to channeled material. So the fact that David and Carla's conscious channeling are conscious can take away from their reliability, but at the same time it doesn't lend extra reliability to Ra, who already has basically zero reliability.
I guess the way I see it is channeled info starts at 0 reliability and only goes down from there. My 5 year old nephew has a reliability of, say, 10, while the best channeled material has a reliability of 0, and typical channeled material a reliability of -30 or something :p
Point is, channeled stuff is almost impossible to trust because something that resonates with you is, at best, a reflection of your own highest-realized self, meaning the best part of yourself that you have managed to dig up, which really isn't your higher self per se but just a distortion of some of your higher self. Trusting your own as-of-now-highest-realization is good, but one should recognize that it is not an authority but rather a reflection.
Other humans can act as authorities and trust-worthy companions in ways that channeled material can never do, and so this is why it's important in my opinion to also look to human traditions and human masters who give their testimony. The testimony of a living human being who has personally experienced the divine is far more valuable than a channeled entity because a human being in the flesh can be ascribed true reliability and can be responsibly trusted.
Anyways thats how I see it