04-30-2015, 08:58 PM
(04-30-2015, 05:00 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote:Quote: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?
Quote:Me: I suspect the most significant detail was that Jim was absent from this session doing grocery shopping.
Quote:Ra: 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?
Quote:Austin: 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?
Quote:Me: One of my favourite House music tunes has a lyric that states "...Purify your mind..." ( here (3.03 mins)), so my interpretation is thoughts that are absent of moral judgement.
Quote:Austin: 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:Me: A simplified version of how things are would be to say something like "God is love". Therefore love is in all things. However we can choose to be loving or unloving while at the same time, be made of love irrespective of whether we are reflecting it.
Quote:Ra: You are not part of a material universe. You are part of a thought.
Quote:Austin: The material universe exists, and we appear to be a part of it. Is Ra implying that thought precedes material? (I think so.)
Quote:Me: Yes I agree. Everything that exists materially has a shelf life. I think this statement of Ra is primarily aimed at shifting, or encouraging Don's perspective towards truth seeking.
Quote:Ra: 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.
Quote:Austin: 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:Me: You have heard the phrase "I can read you like a book"? Perhaps we are an unpredictable species from a perspective that has a greater grasp of truth. Can our planetary status be likened to Japanese Knotweed?
Quote:Ra: 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.
Quote:Austin: 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 believe they are referring to their ability to switch between space/time and time/space, at will. Without referring to later sessions, i'm equally baffled here.
Quote:Ra: The identity of the vibration Ra is our identity.
Quote:Austin: 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:Me: I am Ra?
Quote:Ra: 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.
Quote:Austin: 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:Me: I interpret this to mean that beyond space/time and time/space lies the truth. From our perspective we are setting the concepts of good, bad, right, wrong, up and down, against each other. When we project these value judgements towards others we are failing to recognise that these value judgements have been projected upon us. What is truth?
Quote:Ra: You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things.
Quote:Austin: What is Ra referring to here? Perhaps the question which was lost? If not, what is meant by "you are not speaking of..."?
Quote:Me: Again I refer to Ra's attempts to persuade Don to reconsider his viewpoint. Don viewed the world as an "insane asylum".
Quote:Ra: We do not concern ourselves with the conditions which bring about harvest.
Quote:Austin: 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:Me: Perhaps the planetary changes have the orange/yellow distortions of its inhabitants involved? Maybe the context of the question from Don later in the material invoked a seemingly contradictory reply?
Quote:Ra: Firstly, you must understand that the distinction between yourself and others is not visible to us.
Quote:Austin: 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:Me: They are referring to the 3D space/time perspective that Don is expressing. Our time/space, or violet ray signature is unique, our essence is identical. Blooming paradoxes!
Quote:Ra: However, our very being is hopefully a poignant example of both the necessity and the near-hopelessness of attempting to teach.
Quote:Austin: 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:Me: I interpret that to mean their presence, their use of Carla as an instrument in order to express (be) their perspective. Its a notable example because they are (according to them) a sixth density portion of the confederation attempting to reach out to the occupants of planet earth (which seems to have had little effect if Ra's version of our history is to be believed). It's personal, hence the necessity!
Quote:Ra: To serve one is to serve all.
Quote:Austin: 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:Me: I completely agree with the apparent contradictions. They seem (in my view) to be flicking between a individual perspective and a collective perspective, dependent on the thrust behind Don's queries. It concerns Ra because they choose to be accountable. To ignore the fruits of our choices/actions invites an illusory bliss. To inspect and evaluate them surely implies a necessary, yet hopeless attempt to balance it in the face of free will?
Quote:Ra: 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.
Quote:Austin: 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.
Quote:Me: I think they are essentially saying that the purest way to learn/teach or teach/learn is by example. To be yourself is to teach others how to be. Our unique version of infinity needs to be expressed as this is what is lacking on our planet. Fearless expression is the go to service!
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.
Jim was out shopping. That is significant in my mind.
Great post Austin and I eagerly await this study group! There are a couple of insights I would love to share but have yet to come across the opportunity to do so.