That's how I see it. Our interface to the unconscious is via intuitive perception.
What I see a lot of is "handwaving" using unbalanced intuition (combined with some minimal level of rational experience). Sort of like what is explained in this wikipedia article "By extension, handwaving is used in speculative fiction criticism to refer to a plot device (e.g., a scientific discovery, a political development, or rules governing the behavior of a fictional creature) that is left unexplained or sloppily explained because it is convenient to the story, with the implication that the writer is aware of the logical weakness but hopes the reader will not notice or will suspend disbelief."
Because the intuition may be used to broadly point to something legitimately transcendent to current worldview, the readers may often forgive such handwaving if it merely reinforces their suspicions or elevates their vibration or sparks their imagination. But then it is quite open to interpretation and takes on a life of its own, fueled by wishes and fantasy. You gotta love it (and become suspicious) when they say it's "a knowing" and somehow beyond rationality. It's beyond rationality because they never bothered to see what is there, to develop a philosophy to ask questions about it such as "why" or "how".
Yes, as acceptance evolves so does rational evaluation itself, along with experience.
How many times has Ra or other non-local entity been stopped from explaining something because we had not yet made something part of our experiential nexus? That same potential free-will infringement from the outside (which it seems we are hungry for, yet strangely unwilling to investigate ourselves) is the savior of 3D from the inside.
And when we keep asking how to evolve, they say the same thing - evaluate your experience in order to make what was previously unconscious, conscious. That same evaluation (i.e. applied to very real pressing 'problems') may be shared by all, leading to 'solutions' or an understanding that may not need to have the problem occur in the first place. The problems, unsurprisingly, do not go away when we are purposely vague in order to be all encompassing or to 'elevate' above something without actually transcending and including that which needs to be addressed.
With the illusion, making something 'real' (Ra's 'sculpture'), the purpose of this density, does indeed always require rational engagement.
What I see a lot of is "handwaving" using unbalanced intuition (combined with some minimal level of rational experience). Sort of like what is explained in this wikipedia article "By extension, handwaving is used in speculative fiction criticism to refer to a plot device (e.g., a scientific discovery, a political development, or rules governing the behavior of a fictional creature) that is left unexplained or sloppily explained because it is convenient to the story, with the implication that the writer is aware of the logical weakness but hopes the reader will not notice or will suspend disbelief."
Because the intuition may be used to broadly point to something legitimately transcendent to current worldview, the readers may often forgive such handwaving if it merely reinforces their suspicions or elevates their vibration or sparks their imagination. But then it is quite open to interpretation and takes on a life of its own, fueled by wishes and fantasy. You gotta love it (and become suspicious) when they say it's "a knowing" and somehow beyond rationality. It's beyond rationality because they never bothered to see what is there, to develop a philosophy to ask questions about it such as "why" or "how".
Yes, as acceptance evolves so does rational evaluation itself, along with experience.
How many times has Ra or other non-local entity been stopped from explaining something because we had not yet made something part of our experiential nexus? That same potential free-will infringement from the outside (which it seems we are hungry for, yet strangely unwilling to investigate ourselves) is the savior of 3D from the inside.
And when we keep asking how to evolve, they say the same thing - evaluate your experience in order to make what was previously unconscious, conscious. That same evaluation (i.e. applied to very real pressing 'problems') may be shared by all, leading to 'solutions' or an understanding that may not need to have the problem occur in the first place. The problems, unsurprisingly, do not go away when we are purposely vague in order to be all encompassing or to 'elevate' above something without actually transcending and including that which needs to be addressed.
With the illusion, making something 'real' (Ra's 'sculpture'), the purpose of this density, does indeed always require rational engagement.