05-06-2015, 12:36 AM
(04-30-2015, 05:00 PM)Bring4th_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?
The Original Thought is Unity. Thoughts not consonant, or less consonant, with unity could be considered to be less accurate reflections of the original thought. Love is also unity, and while all things are love, there are less pure expressions of love, which we third densities would not even think of as "love", like hate for example.
(04-30-2015, 05:00 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: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.)
That which appears to be material is merely the tangible/physical reflection of that which is, at its heart, intangible/thought. The time/space is inner, the space/time is outer. One is rooted in mind, and one is rooted in matter.
(04-30-2015, 05:00 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: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?
Our patterns of movement that appear to be operating in resistance to the truth of unity are eccentric, because they are illusory behaviors proceeding forth from an illusory premise, that premise being that there is real separation. There is not.
Living from a perspective of the truth of intrinsic unity is bringing ourselves into alignment with the original thought, and thus results in less "eccentric" movements.
(04-30-2015, 05:00 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: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?
In my opinion, they are referring to the next cycle of 3rd density. And yes, they would/will follow those 3rd densities who do not graduate to the next planet. They are committed to undoing the distortions they feel somewhat responsible for due to their inadvertent infringements in Egypt.
(04-30-2015, 05:00 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: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?
"We don't have names, but if you were to crudely translate our spiritual energy vibrational signature down to its verbal human equivalent, we would be intoned, or addressed properly as Ra."
(04-30-2015, 05:00 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: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?
It is useful for the polarizing 3rd density because it tells them that there is no action that will damn them to hell forever. Truly, we are here to "know thyself", whatever that self happens to be: good/evil, positive/negative. The freedom to explore is what is being offered by this information.
It is also helpful for those who are simply curious about the cosmic process.
(04-30-2015, 05:00 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: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 must have been in regard to the appearance of multitudinous forms. Ra used it as an opportunity to drive home the point of unity once again.
(04-30-2015, 05:00 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: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.
Harvest is more than an external event, it is also an internal event. But the internal events share a relationship with the external events. Just as crops undergo internal changes as the external changes become more prominent, earth changes and other geographical disasters cause an intensity of searching within, thus hastening the readiness of the crop to be harvested (i.e. "us"). Such changes may be just the catalyst someone needs to seek the heart of self, and obtain fourth density understanding as a result of said catalyst.
(04-30-2015, 05:00 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: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 that Ra is saying that while they are certainly capable of perceiving "differences", they do not see or equate those differences as indicative of any kind of separation. They see the universe as the unbroken unity that it is. Thus, they don't see one individual as a separate being from another individual. They are two heads of the same monster, so to speak.
(04-30-2015, 05:00 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: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 they mean their beingness as manifested to the group they are relating to. The necessity is because the harvest is now, the near hopelessness is because few will understand.
(04-30-2015, 05:00 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: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)
It is important only to make efforts to serve as much as one is able. That could be one, it could be many. It is up to the individual to determine which is more effective. That one is attempting to be of service is how one polarizes. Ra can detect distinctions, they just don't detect separation. We are a many headed monster. They are well aware some heads are not in agreement or understanding with many of the other heads.
(04-30-2015, 05:00 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: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.
There are no activities that do not involve learn/teaching or teach/learning so all the examples you could conceivably provide would, by necessity, be some example of those.
Your very existence is an example that other souls will use to further their understanding of the one infinite creator. Just as you can't not serve the creator, you can't not teach/learn or learn/teach.
(04-30-2015, 05:00 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: 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.
Bon Appetit!