04-30-2015, 05:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-30-2015, 05:04 PM by Bring4th_Austin.)
On a recent re-read of the material, I had this nagging feeling about Session 1 that I couldn't shake. It is a bit distinct from the other sessions, as it starts with a "cosmic sermonette," something Ra did not do anywhere else in the material. Also, while Carla says she was asleep at the end of the session, there must always be an asterisk next to the session (and perhaps the next) because there was no ritual to the contact - no accouterments, no circle walking, etc. Presumably, Carla was sitting erect and not laying down. Would any of this affect the quality of the contact? I think it would have to - why else would those things matter? What do you guys think?
Either way, I've launched a re-read of the material with an eye for creating a study guide or curriculum for a study group, and wanted to explore a few things. Thoughts on any or all of these things are greatly welcome and appreciated!
Ra is obviously asking rhetorical questions here, meant to make us think (ha!), but what is the intended sentiment? We are working here without a context (from the Ra material, at least) of what “the Original Thought” is. So what is the “Original Thought” in this context?
Also, does Ra mean to imply that some thoughts are not part of the original thought? In earlier channelings, the original thought was referred to ask love. If love is in all things, are there any thoughts in which love is not contained? Is a thought not part of the original thought if service is not freely given from or within that thought?
The material universe exists, and we appear to be a part of it. Is Ra implying that thought precedes material? (I think so.)
What is eccentric about the patterns of our movement? In grasping the concept that we are part of the original thought, how does that result in less eccentric movements? What's an example of contrast between more eccentric and less eccentric in this context?
What does Ra mean by this? What next cycle? This cycle supposedly ends with this impending harvesting and then there are no more 3rd density cycles on Earth for a long time. Do they mean to imply that they will go with humans to whatever planets they may continue 3rd density experience on? What is the next cycle?
I don't really understand this sentence. What does this mean? If this could be said in other words, how would you say it?
Adonai One already kind of asked this question, but how is this useful information to a 3rd density entity who must polarize in order to progress? Polarizing includes making a choice, interpreting in positive or negative lights, one thing over another – a subjective right or wrong. So how does Ra expect 3rd density entities to use this information about there being no right or wrong, no polarity? What benefit does it serve a person who seeks to serve?
What is Ra referring to here? Perhaps the question which was lost? If not, what is meant by "you are not speaking of..."?
Why does Ra refer to the planetary changes as “conditions which bring about harvest”? This is an odd way to refer to planetary changes, as later in the material Ra seems to imply that planetary changes are a result of harvest, not something that brings about harvest.
How then is it possible for Ra to find the group? How can Ra refer to individuals? If there is no visible distinction, why can Ra refer to these distinctions?
What does Ra mean by this? Are they referring to their simple existence? How or why is their “very being” a poignant example of both necessity and near-hopelessness of attempting to teach?
Why make any efforts to serve more than one? Why then does it concern Ra that the harvest is smaller than it could be? If serving one is serving all, isn't serving one in an attempt to get them to harvestability the same as serving all in the same manner? How can Ra tell if more than one are served? (if, in fact, distinctions are not visible to them)
Why would Ra say that this is the only activity worth doing? Not a single other activity is worth doing? Healing? Meditation? There must be some other activity worth doing in infinity.
I suspect that maybe some of these things which seem odd in my mind could be a result of the distinction of this first session, as I talked about earlier. Perhaps the quality of the words expressed was decreased, the thoughts not translated as well as with the other sessions. But I'd love to hear some perspectives I may be missing.
Either way, I've launched a re-read of the material with an eye for creating a study guide or curriculum for a study group, and wanted to explore a few things. Thoughts on any or all of these things are greatly welcome and appreciated!
Quote:What is it, my friends, to take thought? Took you then thought today? What thoughts did you think today? What thoughts were part of the original thought today? In how many of your thoughts did the creation abide? Was love contained? And was service freely given?
Ra is obviously asking rhetorical questions here, meant to make us think (ha!), but what is the intended sentiment? We are working here without a context (from the Ra material, at least) of what “the Original Thought” is. So what is the “Original Thought” in this context?
Also, does Ra mean to imply that some thoughts are not part of the original thought? In earlier channelings, the original thought was referred to ask love. If love is in all things, are there any thoughts in which love is not contained? Is a thought not part of the original thought if service is not freely given from or within that thought?
Quote:You are not part of a material universe. You are part of a thought.
The material universe exists, and we appear to be a part of it. Is Ra implying that thought precedes material? (I think so.)
Quote:You move your body, your mind, and your spirit in somewhat eccentric patterns for you have not completely grasped the concept that you are part of the original thought.
What is eccentric about the patterns of our movement? In grasping the concept that we are part of the original thought, how does that result in less eccentric movements? What's an example of contrast between more eccentric and less eccentric in this context?
Quote:If not this one, then the next. We are not a part of time and, thus, are able to be with you in any of your times.
What does Ra mean by this? What next cycle? This cycle supposedly ends with this impending harvesting and then there are no more 3rd density cycles on Earth for a long time. Do they mean to imply that they will go with humans to whatever planets they may continue 3rd density experience on? What is the next cycle?
Quote:The identity of the vibration Ra is our identity.
I don't really understand this sentence. What does this mean? If this could be said in other words, how would you say it?
Quote:In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time.
Adonai One already kind of asked this question, but how is this useful information to a 3rd density entity who must polarize in order to progress? Polarizing includes making a choice, interpreting in positive or negative lights, one thing over another – a subjective right or wrong. So how does Ra expect 3rd density entities to use this information about there being no right or wrong, no polarity? What benefit does it serve a person who seeks to serve?
Quote:You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things.
What is Ra referring to here? Perhaps the question which was lost? If not, what is meant by "you are not speaking of..."?
Quote:We do not concern ourselves with the conditions which bring about harvest.
Why does Ra refer to the planetary changes as “conditions which bring about harvest”? This is an odd way to refer to planetary changes, as later in the material Ra seems to imply that planetary changes are a result of harvest, not something that brings about harvest.
Quote:Firstly, you must understand that the distinction between yourself and others is not visible to us.
How then is it possible for Ra to find the group? How can Ra refer to individuals? If there is no visible distinction, why can Ra refer to these distinctions?
Quote:However, our very being is hopefully a poignant example of both the necessity and the near-hopelessness of attempting to teach.
What does Ra mean by this? Are they referring to their simple existence? How or why is their “very being” a poignant example of both necessity and near-hopelessness of attempting to teach?
Quote:To serve one is to serve all.
Why make any efforts to serve more than one? Why then does it concern Ra that the harvest is smaller than it could be? If serving one is serving all, isn't serving one in an attempt to get them to harvestability the same as serving all in the same manner? How can Ra tell if more than one are served? (if, in fact, distinctions are not visible to them)
Quote:Therefore, we offer the question back to you to state that indeed it is the only activity worth doing: to learn/teach or teach/learn.
Why would Ra say that this is the only activity worth doing? Not a single other activity is worth doing? Healing? Meditation? There must be some other activity worth doing in infinity.
I suspect that maybe some of these things which seem odd in my mind could be a result of the distinction of this first session, as I talked about earlier. Perhaps the quality of the words expressed was decreased, the thoughts not translated as well as with the other sessions. But I'd love to hear some perspectives I may be missing.
_____________________________
The only frontier that has ever existed is the self.
The only frontier that has ever existed is the self.