an humble question

rebinator

rebinator

The Force is Strong With This One
I made the mistake of posting this in my intro, and am still learning the system here...

In one of the sessions, the Ra material is judged to have been distorted by about 37 percent by the C's

Given that Don Elkins was quite dedicated to clarifying errors with his source, achieving transparency with his channelling instruments, and asking some of the most brilliantly worded questions I have ever read, I find the revelation quite incredible, I must admit. I admit to a little bit of snipping, which I believe cuts to the chase of what I joined in for...

I suppose Ra's description of the life of the one known to L/L Research as Jehoshua (and to Laura and her group as Jesinavarah) could be a candidate for a major portion of perceived error: major differences on the question of martyrdom plus breadth-over-physical-distance of ministry... does such a disparity constitute the difference, or are there further ones a person should be made aware of?

Does this tie in with the contention that the Ra group were excessively focused on positive polarity? Or perhaps is this an example of two events in a concurrent timeline but with two distinct paths due to 4th density STS tampering? Considering the dates of the sessions of interest [Don Elkins' (Ra's questioner) version, revealed in Session 84, April 14, 1982, and for Laura's session with the C's (session 30, September 1994)], there would have had to have been a minimum of two trips per comparable detail for them both to have received the 'truth' in its context, and for them to be different (or at least for Don's information to be part of the aforementioned 37 percent error rate posited by the C's). However, if Don's information is 'more accurate' to this time/space, then only one trip would have been necessary to falsify it historically (in the act of creating the history which Laura's contacts/higher selves/complexes would quite honestly and correctly perceive as much as Elkin's as the 'way it happened'

Any input on this?

(I could cite the specific texts here, but since they're both so available, and the people who know the answer to my humble naive question already know the work, there should be no need to spend the space unless requested )

With gratitude
 
rebinator said:
I made the mistake of posting this in my intro, and am still learning the system here...

In one of the sessions, the Ra material is judged to have been distorted by about 37 percent by the C's

Given that Don Elkins was quite dedicated to clarifying errors with his source, achieving transparency with his channelling instruments, and asking some of the most brilliantly worded questions I have ever read, I find the revelation quite incredible, I must admit. I admit to a little bit of snipping, which I believe cuts to the chase of what I joined in for...

I suppose Ra's description of the life of the one known to L/L Research as Jehoshua (and to Laura and her group as Jesinavarah) could be a candidate for a major portion of perceived error: major differences on the question of martyrdom plus breadth-over-physical-distance of ministry... does such a disparity constitute the difference, or are there further ones a person should be made aware of?

Does this tie in with the contention that the Ra group were excessively focused on positive polarity? Or perhaps is this an example of two events in a concurrent timeline but with two distinct paths due to 4th density STS tampering? Considering the dates of the sessions of interest [Don Elkins' (Ra's questioner) version, revealed in Session 84, April 14, 1982, and for Laura's session with the C's (session 30, September 1994)], there would have had to have been a minimum of two trips per comparable detail for them both to have received the 'truth' in its context, and for them to be different (or at least for Don's information to be part of the aforementioned 37 percent error rate posited by the C's). However, if Don's information is 'more accurate' to this time/space, then only one trip would have been necessary to falsify it historically (in the act of creating the history which Laura's contacts/higher selves/complexes would quite honestly and correctly perceive as much as Elkin's as the 'way it happened'

Any input on this?

(I could cite the specific texts here, but since they're both so available, and the people who know the answer to my humble naive question already know the work, there should be no need to spend the space unless requested )

With gratitude
Click to expand...

Hi Rebinator and welcome.

From what I understand from Laura's comments and the transcripts, you are mostly correct that the focus only on "light" or positive polarity caused the RA channel to not be able to show the whole picture of reality.

I'm not sure if that is what caused the accuracy issue but as I remember it was the cause of Don not being able to defend himself and ultimately ending his own life.

Remember even the C's transcripts were corrupted because of a few individuals, mainly Frank and other possible factors.

I think we need to remember what the C's said about the sender and receiver being of equal value, meaning the information coming through won't just be pure and accurate if it is from say 6th density because of the source, the receiver probably matters just as much which we presume meaning the same source would give different information to different receivers.

Also to note the differing channeling methods used by both groups, the one being trance channeling and the other mostly through the board with conscious feedback.

Hope this helps.
 
there is no way for me to reply this quickly and to have fully comprehended your answer in the two seconds since I read it... so let this entity just respond, at least for now, with a big 10-4. :)

brb
 
And yet in further contact, if it is to be taken at face value as legitimate, Don Elkins assured his companions that all was well, and that the course had taken its natural turn... according to Carla, I believe. In which case, despite the apparent inanity of debating temporal matters (is in whether to clean the carpet of the house they intended to move into [for further sessions]), or his increasingly paranoid and what I would term 'discharacteristic' behavior, he may have felt a serenity and readiness quite, dare-one-say, congruent with that of Ra's 'Jehoshua'.

I believe that his final act in this particular incarnation was an act of defiance against the attempt to subjugate him to psychiatric practices, no? If so, such a seemingly self destructive act could be as much the defense of a thesis by an adept as a random twitch wrought by implants and transmitted malevolence be it 3rd, 4th, or (in Ra's estimate) 5th density negative/STS.

You spoke of a possible distinction between the quality of what I perceive to be conscious vs. unconscious channelling, while yet earlier stating the importance of quality of the actual receiver, without quite specifying the parameters of said quality.

Furthermore, among much value gleaned from the actual transcripts, I must admit that I personally felt Ra to be rather 'neutral' as well... am I correct in presuming your idea is that that balance (innate to 6th density) was somehow distorted by the monotheistic background of the Don/Carla/Jim complex, despite your own uncertainty?

I receive your input with gratitude and perhaps require more time/space :) Perhaps the key concept being alluded to here throughout is 'defense'...
 
perhaps a major weakness of the L/L Research group, to many, may have been their lack of willingness to learn the details of just to what degree the manipulations of negatively polarized entities may have been implemented. It must be noted, however, that they used their free will to decide to just what degree they made themselves aware of the way things are. Level of individual consciousness/knowledge is one of the most pervasive examples of free will in the Logos. What do you think?
 
rebinator said:
Level of individual consciousness/knowledge is one of the most pervasive examples of free will in the Logos. What do you think?
Click to expand...

We human beings in general seem to have very little (if any) freewill. This is in keeping with Gurdjieff's statement about men being asleep and automatic reaction machines.
 
rebinator said:
define "entirety"
Click to expand...

rebinator the question is pretty simple and straightforward but if you need the definition of entirety maybe you can consult the dictionary :)
 
Ana said:
rebinator said:
define "entirety"
Click to expand...

rebinator the question is pretty simple and straightforward but if you need the definition of entirety maybe you can consult the dictionary :)
Click to expand...

Quite. I ask because your posts indicate that you haven't read the Wave Series, which goes into great detail explaining a lot of the basic premises that we discuss here. It's really worth the read, especially if you want to sincerely participate here.
 
Anybody?

In the spirit of the much-appreciated admonishments offered by the helpful, I was able to locate

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave10b.htm

I believe the first section of this goes a long way towards defining the means by which the number was established... however, I still have my doubts about the rating assignment... especially since Ra appears to be of relatively neutral (unified) polarity... if the strictly positivity mission of the LLR team led to any problems, it would have been in Don's choice to ignore the material pertaining to the STS state of 3rd density earth, and not to errors definable by the system specified in the transcripts linked above.

If my researches into the C material are not sufficient for Anart, we may be at an impasse, for which I apologize if this gets bumped. Also, I must respectfully disclaim (and take exception to the suggestion of) any disingenuousness on my part, my status as guest notwithstanding. :)










anart said:
Ana said:
rebinator said:
define "entirety"
Click to expand...

rebinator the question is pretty simple and straightforward but if you need the definition of entirety maybe you can consult the dictionary :)
Click to expand...

Quite. I ask because your posts indicate that you haven't read the Wave Series, which goes into great detail explaining a lot of the basic premises that we discuss here. It's really worth the read, especially if you want to sincerely participate here.
Click to expand...
 
thank you for your lucid and pertinent reply, Franco. Thank you for your advice to check the transcripts Anart! :) This has given me much food for thought :) As for Ana's question, is Wave vol. 7 recent enough? I want to make sure we have access to the same set of research materials...
 
rebinator said:
thank you for your lucid and pertinent reply, Franco. Thank you for your advice to check the transcripts Anart! :) This has given me much food for thought :) As for Ana's question, is Wave vol. 7 recent enough? I want to make sure we have access to the same set of research materials...
Click to expand...

Yes it is, it is part of the Wave series, you can read the rest here: http://cassiopaea.org/
and if you want to buy the books you can do so here: http://en.pilulerouge.com/
 
Obyvatel's references to Gurdjieff's (quite valid) perceptions are interesting, and received with much gratitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom