05-01-2015, 09:45 AM
I always liked Session 1 as an intro, I'll offer my take in case it helps:
Hope that offers a perspective, now to read everyone else's take!
(04-30-2015, 05:00 PM)B ring4th_Austin Wrote: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?
I think the original thought is love. I think that what Ra is trying to emphasize is the direct results our thoughts have on our reality. Society doesn't offer us this information, humans' biggest problem is letting others tell them what to do/how to think.
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.)
Yes, Ra is implying thought precedes material, and emphasizing the illusion that is obviously very apparent from their POV.
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?
Being focused on love for an extended period of time would be less eccentric than hopping from love to disdain and back again a few times. Most of us don't have conscious control of our mental complexes, especially before opening our minds to material like the LOO. We just let our minds carry us away.
When I think of the "dancing thought" metaphor, it always makes me think of tripping, when my emotions are so directly affecting my experience in the now. We dissociate from that a lot I think.
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?
I think they are referring to humans who don't get harvested, that they still feel responsibility until earthlings have graduated. Not that they will hover around all 75k+ years but that they can pop in around harvest time of those "cycles" to help.
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?
Ra. Say it out loud. Vibrate it. That is their identity. Hard for our puny humans minds to get I guess. "Ra!" as an exclamation is often used in cheering, a joyful event.
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?
I don't think Ra is only speaking to the 3D entities. A lot of positively polarized entities who read the Law of One are either A) already harvestable or B) very close and the book will push them over the edge. All of us who are incarnated are seeking to serve in one way or another. For those who read the LOO (mostly positive entities), knowing there is no right or wrong is a big relief to many who beat themselves up over guilt and embarrassment.
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..."?
The question was lost, and inference tells me that maybe Don asked a compare and contrast question between to things (them and Ra, humans and higher entities, something). So Ra said you are not speaking of like things, they are the same thing, All is One.
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.
I think of planetary changes as being unnecessary unless Harvest is being difficult. Sure, the earth needs to release pressure in various places, this is undeniable. When and where is up for grabs yet. For positive ETs to comment on possibility/probability vortexes involving earthquakes and disasters is not proper, because none of these things actually HAVE to happen, but by giving energy to them they are increasing the likelihood.
When a channeled ET comments on earth changes, it is almost guaranteed negatively influenced. Someone asks, "What earth changes are going to occur around California??" in a panic, and a neg latches on and gives very vague information under the guise of being helpful. "Oh yes, there will be earthquakes around this time, and flooding around here..." Well, these things are very possible. But to feed humans a line of negativity (death and destruction) to fantasize about energises the possibility of the event happening at the specific place/time, because who ever reads the channeling adds energy to that possibility/probability vortex. Instead it is better to "not concern ourselves with the conditions which bring about harvest", and instead focus on sending healing energy to the earth in hopes that less of the "events" need to even occur.
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?
I think Ra is talking about the illusion, in which other-selves are only a mirror to the self. In that answer Ra goes on to say:
"Thus, to learn is the same as to teach unless you are not teaching what you are learning; in which case you have done you/they little or no good. This understanding should be pondered by your mind/body/spirit complex as it is a distortion which plays a part in your experiences at this nexus."
The question was whether or not one could affect others with their being, an advanced and astute question that shows how adept Don was at getting information.
"Another question. Is it possible to create any acceleration of understanding [in] other entities [or are] all efforts… efforts by the individual on himself accelerating his understanding? In other words, if an individual tries to act as a catalyst in general to increase the awareness of planetary consciousness, is he doing nothing but acting upon himself or is it possible [inaudible]?"
So the answer Ra is giving is to work on oneself before you worry about working on others.
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?
I think Ra is trying to be inspirational here. Again Don's question was about whether or not one's being can influence another, or the planetary consciousness. I think their "very being" was the situation there were in, a new teacher had hijacked their weekly channeling meditation with an important announcement.
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)
I think these are "I" (personal) distinctions. The questions to ask are, am I serving one, or the All? Do I just serve a select few (my coworkers, family, people of the same race) or do I serve the ALL (everyone and everything). Sure, it may be possible to reach harvest by selective serving, but the Law of One books' end goal is not reaching harvest.
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 think meditation falls under teach/learning. Maybe healing too (the healer only offers themselves as catalyst; the healee must recognize and accept this new way of being into themselves; learning/being taught.
I think learn/teaching and teach/learning are analogous to expansion of thought. I think Ra is encouraging everyone to be more inclusive with themselves.
Hope that offers a perspective, now to read everyone else's take!