Noble Realms

spirituality - physics - conspiracy - philosophy - wisdom - and more...

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Noble Realms Forum is now closed. It will remain online as a searchable archive of posts spanning 3/25/04 to 2/22/08. Members may still log in to use email functions, but there will be no further posting activity. Thank you to everyone who has contributed over the years. - Tom/montalk

#16 2007-09-26 18:42:05

Seeking the Truth
Member
Registered: 2006-12-02

Re: David Wilcock: Free Video Seminar

Auscastian wrote:

I have a question for all NR members who have viewed any David Wilcock material.  What would you say the overall authenticity is, of that which Wilcock is presenting?  His views on Spiritual Evolution, his theorys of the Universe, The Shift, 2012, etc.  He seems to be well educated into the Fringe topics he covers, but also seems to be basing alot of its accuracy on the "Law of One Series". The C's have stated this material is 63% accurate, so exactly how much of what Wilcock is stating to be "Fact" is undeterminable and left only for discernment.  Havent really seen anyone say much about him, or his material so im curious as to how he is being perceived by other members here on the boards.

I just finished reading the Divine Cosmos.  I was kind of taking a step backwards by doing that, but there was some information in there that was new to me, so it's all good.  I have noticed that a few of the people he depends on for building his case have been debunked elsewhere.  But all in all, I think he's very sincere and the connections he has made mathmatically are pretty darn impressive. 

I'm wondering who he is?  He's a channeler himself? Who does he channel?  I only read the book because I got a link to it thru a link of free ebooks.  I haven't watched the videos.  In the book, it was a little confusing because he referred to himself in the third person.  And the link I found the book on didn't have a title page or author name or anything. 

The discernment needed to read information in this realm is tremendous.  Sentence by sentence you must determine for yourself what seems true.  Is is true? Who knows. 

Bottom line is for me:  I think he's on to something.  Everyone has done a turn around and said that the 2012 thing is just bunk; people trying to scare us, yada yada.  And I bought that, just as security.  But then reading the DC really made me look at all in another light.  Everything that he's pointed out and the conclusions that he's made are right in line with my gut feelings.  Well, not everything, but alot of it--at least concerning cycles and math and such.  Are we being made to feel this omnipresent feeling of change or is something really changing?  I think it's the latter. 

I woke up the other morning with a song put in my head immediately from my sleep state.  I don't remember my dreams but I sometimes bring back songs or a sentence.  It was REO Speedwagon,  "Riding the Storm Out".  It only adds confirmation to what I feel during my waking state.

Offline

 

#17 2007-09-27 03:32:53

wandering1
Explorer
Registered: 2004-04-02

Re: David Wilcock: Free Video Seminar

Auscastian wrote:

The C's have stated this material is 63% accurate

As has been noted somewhere else on this site, there is a possibility that the C's were using three categories when referring to the Ra material (Law of One series).  There may be an "accurate" category, an "inaccurate" category, and a "neutral" category.

For example, if the C's had been asked to clarify, they might have said that the Ra material is 63% accurate, 27% neutral, and 10% inaccurate.

As far a David Wilcock overall, I think that he has integrity.

If you watch this set of videos, you can see that he makes the case for a phase change in 2012-2013.  His view is that there will be a shift to 4th density positive on this planet.  His viewpoint is that this change will be place by 2013 and will not require decades.

In his terms, 4th density positive will be 100 times more harmonious than we are currently experiencing.

Thus far, the strongest effect that I feel is the sense that "time is speeding up."

We shall see where this goes . . .

If the sense of time speeding up has an exponential rate of change then I can imagine a planetary consciousness phase change that could happen in the near future of a few years and may not need a period of decades.

Last edited by wandering1 (2007-09-27 03:46:16)

Offline

 

#18 2007-12-29 17:34:48

DanB
Member
Registered: 2007-06-05

Re: David Wilcock: Free Video Seminar

David and Project Camelot -- New Video!

Friday 12 / 28 / 07

http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?o … ;Itemid=70

Offline

 

#19 2008-02-06 05:45:51

Xenopope
Exegesis
From: NOTHING
Registered: 2004-09-03

Re: David Wilcock: Free Video Seminar

Auscastian wrote:

I have a question for all NR members who have viewed any David Wilcock material.  What would you say the overall authenticity is, of that which Wilcock is presenting?  His views on Spiritual Evolution, his theorys of the Universe, The Shift, 2012, etc.  He seems to be well educated into the Fringe topics he covers, but also seems to be basing alot of its accuracy on the "Law of One Series". The C's have stated this material is 63% accurate, so exactly how much of what Wilcock is stating to be "Fact" is undeterminable and left only for discernment.  Havent really seen anyone say much about him, or his material so im curious as to how he is being perceived by other members here on the boards.

He is resonating with me right now. big_smile Seriously, I hold very high esteem in what he says; there's just something that feels very right about what he says. He has done his research and has managed to teach me a few things in the first few parts of his interviews.


I am as is Void.

Offline

 

#20 2008-02-06 06:02:23

Poffo
Member
Registered: 2005-12-20

Re: David Wilcock: Free Video Seminar

He's the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce, for Christ's sake! wink

Offline

 

#21 2008-02-06 11:06:26

nexus
fool
From: Australia
Registered: 2007-04-07
Website

Re: David Wilcock: Free Video Seminar

Poffo wrote:

He's the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce, for Christ's sake! wink

Edgar Cayce was called "The Sleeping Prophet" and "America's Greatest Psychic".   He had a spiritual gift which allowed him to access the higher- Mind while in a deep, self imposed trance.  In order to give a "life reading" for someone, he simply lay down on the couch, put himself into a receptive mental state and was drawn deep within, into a state akin to a sleeping man.  Except he could listen to questions and speak answers for the person he was "reading".  I don't know if the record shows whether Cayce had any help with that attunement at inner levels or not.  But to even be given what he was given  shows an ability which he had already developed in prior incarnations.

If you've read the 'life record' given by Cayce for his own incarnations, you will see that he had some lives in which he "gained" and others where he didn't "gain".  Like most people, some lifetimes were spent in service and others were spent in self- pursuit/self deception.  "Gain" and "no gain" were the terms Cayce used in summarising his own lifetimes and those of the people he was reading. [Just as an aside, you will not find anything in the Cayce material which refers to STS lifetimes as being a "gain".  In my view this is a reflection of the truth and is in stark contrast to David Wilcock's 'belief' today that the path of STS is a valid path to ascension.]

My point with all this was to point out that, although i share Poffo's respect and affection for Edgar Cayce, i would be very careful of putting him on a pedestal and then transferring that over to David Wilcock.  That kind of unqualified appraisal is approaching a form of idolatry and you know what can happen to the idols we erect.  Anyone can make mistakes and, from the Cayce material itself, we know that Cayce's soul has made his share.  While i also respect David Wilcock and appreciate a lot of his work and his sincerity, i dissagree with a few crucial tenets of the "Ra" material which Wilcock has swallowed whole.  As you must realise, any soul can miss the mark of truth and true service in any lifetime even when they're sincere.

In this incarnation, David has completely embraced the "Ra" channelings as valid.... he has embraced the source of the material as valid STO, in spite of some of it's deadly advice...... he keeps a company of trust with people in the 'black-ops' community'..... and he is in personal contact with UFOs who present to him as 'friendly STO'.  This is all quite a brew.  Could it be such a heady brew that David has let all these incredible associations (including his conscious awareness of his soul's incarnation as Edgar Cayce and Ra Ta in Egypt) go to his head?  I'm not trying to be clever by saying that.  I imagine it could all well go to a man's head if he weren't careful of himself.  It's a question i ask rather than a conclusion i've come to.  David Wilcock really does feel to me that he is a very sincere seeker of truth in all this.  Could he have got in too deep and committed too far to the extent that he himself (maybe even being convinced that he himself is the true author of the "Ra" channelings) cannot challenge the obvious distortions in the "Ra" material? .... or the orientation of some of the people he mixes with? or the clear contrast between the Cayce material and the "Ra" material?

Last edited by nexus (2008-02-06 11:35:40)

Offline

 

#22 2008-02-06 12:33:18

DanB
Member
Registered: 2007-06-05

Re: David Wilcock: Free Video Seminar

Hmmmmmmm!

Just a strong thought to add.  And please understand that I am indifferent to personal opinions regarding Divine Cosmos...especially if familiarization is minimal.

I personally believe in simplicity of the heart and that intuitiveness is directing each of us that focus personally from within and this intuit energy is getting stronger each and every day and helps each of us embrace the cosmic future with heartfelt love and wisdom in the now!

If You read and listen to David's "stuff" to a more thorough degree and watch his interviews you will come across things he has said regarding him and Cayce and Ra. He did not want anything to do with the reincarnation of Cayce at first because of the way people are and how they distort things and how they would point and say he was riding shirt tails with ego.  David reluctantly made that inevitable association with Cayce.

Ra is trying to make things right that went wrong that are his responsibility...he veered.

Edgar Cayce / Ra may be reincarnated in hundreds of souls in the now...as David Wilcock's readily divulges in writing and interviews. He just happened to tune in a bit more and ran with it at a young age.

And Nexus...I respect You and I am new here, please understand. This is not directed at you and is not being derogatory of you. I just personally feel the point has to be brought forward that Wilcock's does in fact have a very good grasp on humility and gratitude, imho! Also...the research and work he has done has been a life commitment and has opened the door for many people that I personally know of to look into the spiritual/cosmic world for themselves from within.

I , for one, am very much looking forward to the movie of his coming out later this year,  "Convergence" !

Offline

 

#23 2008-02-06 17:16:30

nexus
fool
From: Australia
Registered: 2007-04-07
Website

Re: David Wilcock: Free Video Seminar

DanB wrote:

Hmmmmmmm!

Just a strong thought to add.  And please understand that I am indifferent to personal opinions regarding Divine Cosmos...especially if familiarization is minimal.

I personally believe in simplicity of the heart and that intuitiveness is directing each of us that focus personally from within and this intuit energy is getting stronger each and every day and helps each of us embrace the cosmic future with heartfelt love and wisdom in the now!

If You read and listen to David's "stuff" to a more thorough degree and watch his interviews you will come across things he has said regarding him and Cayce and Ra. He did not want anything to do with the reincarnation of Cayce at first because of the way people are and how they distort things and how they would point and say he was riding shirt tails with ego.  David reluctantly made that inevitable association with Cayce.

I've watched the interviews too and i am familiar with your bolded statements.

I know David Wilcock has said that he sqirmed over the revelation that he was once Edgar Cayce.  He also said he thought that the people at A.R.E acted disgracefully by failing to acknowlege him in the early days.  His original reluctance has clearly given way since then and his subsequent associations, taken as a whole, are presently, as i said, quite a brew.  The enormity of it all.  While we shouldn't underestimate famous people (or anyone for that matter) neither should we over- estimate people to the point of idolatry.  Anyone could find themselves too committed to a scheme and to the personalities associated with it (incarnate and discarnate) that they could get past listening to the still small voice of their own valid doubts.  Valid concerns can sometimes get pushed to the back of the mind until they are supressed altogether.  On the other hand, maybe Wilcock does find everything internally consistent (in the "Ra" material) and has no concerns about it, even in the back of his mind.  If that is the case i still felt the need to register my dissagrement with "Ra" on several important points.   

I was responding to Poffo's unqualified one liner...  "He's the re- incarnation of Edgar Cayce for Christ's sake".   For the sake of Christ, who is the spirit of truth within us we must realise that no- one is infallible.  Edgar wasn't in his prior incarnations and Wilcock isn't in this life either.  He may actually be mistaken on crucial matters, whether or not that can be attributed to ego.  I was asking the question because i am at a loss to know why he would overlook such gross errors.  I was also referring to the "confirmation from all sides" which Wilcock is at the centre of.  It doesn't leave a man much room for doubt even if it is healthy doubt.  I was asking questions in my last post.  I was speculating about the reason why, if there is so much wrong with the "Ra" material, has David swallowed it whole.

DanB wrote:

Ra is trying to make things right that went wrong that are his responsibility...he veered.

I am aware that ages ago Edgar Cayce's soul was incarnate as a man named Ra and that his soul (like ours) has  responsibilities of a karmic nature that reach into the present .  That is what Cayce said and i accept that because i found Cayce to be a trustworthy source.   But i don't accept that the entity calling himself/themselves "Ra" in the channellings is the same Ra as Cayce was talking about.  In fact, given some of the distortions i've read in the "Ra" channellings and some of the deadly advice i found amongst it, i am forming the opinion that this "Ra" character is an imposter.  Of who?  In part, if we are to believe "Ra's" version..... of Wilcock himself.  Staggering possibility.

Here's a few more speculative questions....   Could this whole thing have been a set up from the beginning to snare the soul of Cayce when he returned?  Considering Cayce's public prophetic statements in the 1940s (of his subsequent return to embodiment in the late 1990s), could some group have produced an elaborate set up which began shortly after Cayce departed this world in ~ 1944?  The idea would be unthinkable if not for the deadly lies folded into the "Ra"material and the way the whole thing is so tailor made for this one soul.  Cayce said he would return as a "liberator of humanity".  Could that have been an invitation to some group (astra and / or physical) to give him a dud message for humanity?   And i am not simply refering to the silly errors (of grammar and syntax) which the silly "C"s are referring to in their % accuracy count for the "Ra" material.  (as if those kinds of errors matter as much as the question of "IS THIS TRUE?") 

I am referring to the distillation of the whole "Ra" scheme.  Nonsense like the STS path to Ascension....  Or the idea that evil is the ESSENTIAL polarity to God because it provides the negative pole and the friction necessary for creativity.... Or the suggestion that it is now time to choose STS or STO as valid paths to ascension.... OR that the etheric and Buddhic levels of consciousness do not concern us at this stage and are reserved only for Adepts..... OR that IF you choose STO as your PREFFERED way to ascension then you need only devote 51% of your activity to others in order to graduate to 4d....   I have explained why i use the word "deadly" in relation to these falsehoods on several threads recently.  [Magnetics and Ascension] [What we must do to ascend] etc. so i won't go into it here again.  But it is the reason why i am speculating the way i am about a wider trap. 

DanB wrote:

Edgar Cayce / Ra may be reincarnated in hundreds of souls in the now...as David Wilcock's readily divulges in writing and interviews. He just happened to tune in a bit more and ran with it at a young age.

Where are these 100s of souls.  Like Wilcock, do they believe "Ra" too?

All cycles are turning in the eternal NOW.   But in space / time the years are turning, subsequently, one after the other as the earth continues it's ancient ritual of revolving around the sun within a galaxy which 'gently' turns.  It's an illusion you say?  Only if you can consciously transcend time and space... Which of course can be done.  The higher- Self is transcendent, both beyond and (for some) within time and space.  But for souls unaware or barely aware of the higher-Self and focussed in space/time?.... The years keep turning.  That's what has been happening for ages.  Some of you could find your bones if you went looking for them.   

DanB wrote:

And Nexus...I respect You and I am new here, please understand. This is not directed at you and is not being derogatory of you. I just personally feel the point has to be brought forward that Wilcock's does in fact have a very good grasp on humility and gratitude, imho! Also...the research and work he has done has been a life commitment and has opened the door for many people that I personally know of to look into the spiritual/cosmic world for themselves from within.

Don't worry DanB i am not offended by your defense of David Wilcock.  I too, don't sense an overbearing ego in his presentation.  If you re-read my last paragraph you might see where i took my speculative questions.  That whatever is in his head due to the strong brew he is influenced by ( a brew concocted by several psychologically powerful exterior and interior forces) he just may be in too deep to listen to any valid doubts that may be (should be?) whispering in the back of his mind.  The doubts are ringing at high decibels in my mind.  I am concerned with who might take "Ra's" worst advice.

Last edited by nexus (2008-02-06 17:26:42)

Offline

 

#24 2008-02-06 20:18:12

DanB
Member
Registered: 2007-06-05

Re: David Wilcock: Free Video Seminar

DanB wrote:

I personally believe in simplicity of the heart and that intuitiveness is directing each of us that focus personally from within and this intuit energy is getting stronger each and every day and helps each of us embrace the cosmic future with heartfelt love and wisdom in the now!

There is NO going wrong if the heart becomes the connection for the soul and the source of energy of our personal actions in front of us in the now.

And that IS that!  IMHO!

Particularly 34+ minutes into the interview where Hoagland mentions
Wilcock and parallels in research...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 6170106419
Project Camelot interviews Richard Hoagland - Part 3

Last edited by DanB (2008-02-06 20:35:05)

Offline

 

#25 2008-02-07 05:11:26

montalk
forum-keeper-upper
Registered: 2004-03-25
Website

Re: David Wilcock: Free Video Seminar

nexus wrote:

I am referring to the distillation of the whole "Ra" scheme.  Nonsense like the STS path to Ascension....

I know there are some who cavalierly interpret the Law of One as an excuse for moral relativism, believing that since STS and STO both lead to unity with the Creator, they can feel good about letting loose their inner psychopath. Which is not what the Ra/Cass material claims. To avoid the potential for misrepresentation, what the material claims is that while STS does lead to eventual unification with the Creator, it is unification with the material/sleeping/frozen pole of Creation. In other words, spiritual atrophy, death, disintegration -- kind of like becoming "one with the earth" by being buried and eaten by worms.

The STS path of ascension leads out of 3D and into a negative 4D state, one step farther from the active/conscious/divine pole of Creation, while STO ascension leads a step closer. So while both involve ascending from 3D, what they ascend into is diametrically opposite. They are not equivalent, anymore than buying with credit card is equivalent to buying with hard money; both let you make the same purchase, but one leads to debt while the other has been earned. I disagree with anyone who uses the Law of One to rationalize their predatory dark side or become a doormat to abusers. If you know better, then act better.

The reason I place credence in the idea is that experience tells me higher negative entities exist, and I wonder how they got there. Could human adepts of dark occultism become so powerful as to transcend 3D altogether? If so, then that would be an STS pathway out of 3D... it's just that the pathway leads to a state that, while free of the spacetime limitations and mundane dramas that still bind us, is spiritually more constricted. I think that's why higher dark entities have to be so cunning and clever in their freewill manipulations, because spirit-to-spirit they have less power than we do, and thus they require greater leverage through knowledge, mobility, magick and technology to make use of what little spiritual power they have.


Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

Offline

 

#26 2008-02-07 08:16:54

Poffo
Member
Registered: 2005-12-20

Re: David Wilcock: Free Video Seminar

nexus,

Please DO take this personally, but not with the thought of conveyed malice and contempt on my part.  This is just my honest as possible assessment of an oddly transpiring series of posts and related synchronicities.

It feels like the vibe between you and I has developed into a case of zealot vs. heretical apologist, first in the "Disturbed Reptilian Rock Band" thread, and then in the Magnetics and Ascension thread, where you point out the blasphemy in another point of view and then attempt to prove that YOUR truth is the right one.  Are you aware of this dynamic?  The part of it that I like is that you are forcing me to reconsider parts of my paradigm and experience which is always a fruitful endeavor if kept in check, but ultimately putting in the work nexessary to satisfy your questions would drain a lot of my time/energy which I could be using more proactively...and I have a feeling it would just keep going on until NR closes.  You may notice that I ask several questions in this post but they are intended to be rhetorical as I won't be going through with expanding this unhealthy energy exchange between us much longer.

"I spy with my little eye" that your puritanical ways (past lives?) could be actually acting as a hindance rather than a salvation of your soul's development.  The thing about the puritan-agitator's zealotry is that through it they seek the reward of energetic profit in their social-intellectual pursuits, even if that goes against what they teach.  While it does stirs things up, one must ask what the resulting concoction is made of and how nutritious is it for those involved?

If I were you I would buy/download, read, and properly analyze the whole Lo1 series as objectively as possible and then reevaluate your position, because from what I see it is clearly a source of friction for you and I think you might benefit more from checking it out yourself and figuring things out instead of coming on NR to debate it with others who are familiar enough with the material to have an impossible time explaining it to you on YOUR terms.  If you have indeed read it (hasn't been made totally clear) then I apologize for my assumptions.

It may interest you to know that I have had the Way of the Fool as a theme recently, as I was reading The Zelator, and dealing with "doctrine" issues both with myself and other friends.  The #22 came up a lot (think NR close date) and Ra designates the "Fool" card as the 22nd major arcana card (usually considered 0).  They call it "The Choice" card which represents the choice of polarity (STO/STS) in 3rd density.  To them the other 21 cards related to the 7 archetypes of mind, body, and spirit within 3rd density (the level of formation of mind/body/spirit complexes).  So the 22nd card (Fool/Choice) is determined by the immersion in these 21 archetypes.  Studying the verity of even this one part of the Lo1 teachings may prove to you the probable validity of the Ra source as being overwhelmingly positive in nature, in deed and essence.

Anyway, I recently noticed that you had the put the word "fool" as the title under your user name, which synched up with my current research and learning themes.  The funny thing is that around that time I had put in my MSN name "[Poffo]...is a Fool" and had to keep telling inquiring friends to mind the capital F lest they think I was in a state of self-loathing. There IS a difference between a fool and a Fool, as there is between an i and the I.  I even got an email of reassurance that I wasn't the crazy one in the Ra debate in Magnetics and Ascension...

What kind of Fool already has his mind already made up going in and balks at anything which goes against it?  And wouldn't a real Fool be humble in his learnings and not try to force them down people's throats (which is clearly a violation of the 5th Chakra Protection Act tongue) <- my inanity, not Ra's.   

nexus wrote:

My point with all this was to point out that, although i share Poffo's respect and affection for Edgar Cayce, i would be very careful of putting him on a pedestal and then transferring that over to David Wilcock.

I would be careful of putting me on a pedestal too....wink

I was responding to Poffo's unqualified one liner...For the sake of Christ, who is the spirit of truth within us we must realise that no- one is infallible.  Edgar wasn't in his prior incarnations and Wilcock isn't in this life either.  He may actually be mistaken on crucial matters, whether or not that can be attributed to ego.  I was asking the question because i am at a loss to know why he would overlook such gross errors.

nexus, I was trying to make a joke, hence the "wink".  'twas supposed to be a play on his "reincarnation of Edgar Cayce" fame and foundation, while also pointing to the fact that the soul of Edgar Cayce was one who respected and attempted to channel the Christ essence in life.....get it? lol...yikes.....hmm.......neutral.......roll...

We know Cayce and Wilcock aren't perfect so why is their infallibility such a contentious issue?  Shouldn't the quality of fruit speak for the parental tree?

[my bold emphasis]

The idea would be unthinkable if not for the deadly lies folded into the "Ra"material and the way the whole thing is so tailor made for this one soul.  Cayce said he would return as a "liberator of humanity".  Could that have been an invitation to some group (astra and / or physical) to give him a dud message for humanity?   And i am not simply refering to the silly errors (of grammar and syntax) which the silly "C"s are referring to in their % accuracy count for the "Ra" material.  (as if those kinds of errors matter as much as the question of "IS THIS TRUE?")

Deadly lies?  I'm willing to bet that a significantly higher percentage of the population who have read the Law of One books have been brought further into LIFE than those who it has somehow, in the "nexus Scheme" way of looking at it, brought into death because of Ra's ob(liv)ious deception.

What if I told you that I have seen their tailoring work within the fabric of my soul's wandering reincarnational spectrum? Wait, I just told you.... tongue .  The Lo1 teachings have had a profound impact on my reawakening this time around (as well as others for sure).  I have been able to extract knowledge out of those 4 tiny books, and new things each time, that have led to the development of my personal philosophy/cosmology which contain (to the best of my knowledge) new keys for the esoteric locks that hide away truth from the light of day.  Each time reading the series I extract more, and I think you could say this about any inspirational text.  I have had FAR too many POSITIVE synchronicities surrounding this material and information contained within it to deny for me, using maximum discernment power at hand, the huge personal relevance as well as the load of truth it contains within its obvious distortions.

I don't think it was written exclusively for me, but I think I was written for it wink

Of course there are distortions within the Law of One sessions, mostly because they were:

A) channeled
B) ...by humans!

But are the distortions enough to make you shrug your shoulders at the entire body of information? To declare the Ra source a "dud" based on some things you can't personally wrap your paradigm around (different explanation of esoteric "bodies", density graduation/ascension, the STS/STO soul polarity,...) would with wise eyes be seen as philosophical suicide.

I am Poffo. I leave you now in the love and in the light of the one infinite Creator. Go forth then rejoicing in the power and in the peace of the one infinite Creator. Adonai. <- joke big_smile

Offline

 

#27 2008-02-07 11:56:14

DanB
Member
Registered: 2007-06-05

Re: David Wilcock: Free Video Seminar

Mornin' Montalk and Poffo...Good to read Your sharing here!

And Poffo...I had to smile smile at the extrapolation of My "one liners" in post  "#22" !!!

I may be a Fool...but that IS synchronicity or parallel or similarity or likeness or....

Anywho...if I see You on the path of love and light rejoicing like a Fool in the power and in the peace
I shall run over to You and smile and jump up and down like a happy little kid finding an old and beloved Friend...so there! smile

Offline

 

#28 2008-02-07 14:18:56

nexus
fool
From: Australia
Registered: 2007-04-07
Website

Re: David Wilcock: Free Video Seminar

Poffo wrote:

nexus,

Please DO take this personally, but not with the thought of conveyed malice and contempt on my part.  This is just my honest as possible assessment of an oddly transpiring series of posts and related synchronicities .

It feels like the vibe between you and I has developed into a case of zealot vs. heretical apologist, first in the "Disturbed Reptilian Rock Band" thread, and then in the Magnetics and Ascension thread, where you point out the blasphemy in another point of view and then attempt to prove that YOUR truth is the right one.  Are you aware of this dynamic?

Sire.  Is this the spanish inquisition of the spanish imquisition?
I have replied to ideas which i've dissagreed with and i've informed the discussion with my views.  It was clear they weren't being considered beforehand.  Why wouldn't i attempt to prove my views when proof is available?  What constitutes proof is different for every man and woman so all must decide for themselves if a case is proven.   An assertive approach will sometimes be percieved as zealous particularly when the other man holds dear his own views.  Is this blasphemy sire?  Do i blasheme by being dissagreable?

Poffo wrote:

The part of it that I like is that you are forcing me to reconsider parts of my paradigm and experience which is always a fruitful endeavor if kept in check, but ultimately putting in the work nexessary to satisfy your questions would drain a lot of my time/energy which I could be using more proactively...and I have a feeling it would just keep going on until NR closes.  You may notice that I ask several questions in this post but they are intended to be rhetorical as I won't be going through with expanding this unhealthy energy exchange between us much longer.

I didn't know there was an unhealthy energy exchange Poffo.  I have been at peace in my posting on these subjects.  On the Magnetics and Ascension thread i asked a lot of questions.  While you were clearly taking them personally i was simply pointing out to anyone who is interested in the question of "Ra's" authenticity that these are the questions that arise in my mind.  They were questions to "Ra" not to you Poffo (except the 2 or 3 questions i asked you in response to your own defense of "Ra" to me.)  They were my own deconstructions of some of the "Ra" material presented by Don Elkins (and some which you happened to post in "Ra's" defence) and questions regarding some of the gross errors in the Ra material which i have discussed here and on other threads.  Any bad vibes you are experiencing by reading it are not coming from me and is more likely your own defensiveness.

Poffo wrote:

"I spy with my little eye" that your puritanical ways (past lives?) could be actually acting as a hindance rather than a salvation of your soul's development.  The thing about the puritan-agitator's zealotry is that through it they seek the reward of energetic profit in their social-intellectual pursuits, even if that goes against what they teach.  While it does stirs things up, one must ask what the resulting concoction is made of and how nutritious is it for those involved?

If you had spied with your little eye my past embodiments, you wouldn't be saying that Poffo.  But again, because you'd rather psycho-analyse me than deal with your own feelings (or my most pertinent questions) you're simply projecting your disturbance onto me.  I can assure you i do not profit from that.

Poffo wrote:

If I were you I would buy/download, read, and properly analyze the whole Lo1 series as objectively as possible and then reevaluate your position, because from what I see it is clearly a source of friction for you and I think you might benefit more from checking it out yourself and figuring things out instead of coming on NR to debate it with others who are familiar enough with the material to have an impossible time explaining it to you on YOUR terms.  If you have indeed read it (hasn't been made totally clear) then I apologize for my assumptions.

That is a quite a wholesale defense of the "Ra" material Poffo.  If something is patently false, as some of the "Ra" material which i've commented on is, then i don't see a problem with raising it it on a public discussion board whether or not it is defended wholesale by some people.  If i see people in a quandry about whether or not they're complying with Ra's (false) prescription for ascension then i see nothing wrong with contributing my view on the subject.  I am familiar with the content of Don Elkins talk and that is what i originally replied to.  I am familiar also with what you put in front of me and that too is what i replied to. 

Poffo wrote:

It may interest you to know that I have had the Way of the Fool as a theme recently, as I was reading The Zelator, and dealing with "doctrine" issues both with myself and other friends.  The #22 came up a lot (think NR close date) and Ra designates the "Fool" card as the 22nd major arcana card (usually considered 0).  They call it "The Choice" card which represents the choice of polarity (STO/STS) in 3rd density.  To them the other 21 cards related to the 7 archetypes of mind, body, and spirit within 3rd density (the level of formation of mind/body/spirit complexes).  So the 22nd card (Fool/Choice) is determined by the immersion in these 21 archetypes.  Studying the verity of even this one part of the Lo1 teachings may prove to you the probable validity of the Ra source as being overwhelmingly positive in nature, in deed and essence.

Personally i can't be impressed with the numbers when the words contain dangerous lies.  I am familiar with the "fool" taro card being the 22 major arcana.  It has personal significance to me for various reasons.  Whether or not Ra's interpretation of the numbers is any more accurate than the distortions i've found in the Ra material i wouldn't know.  There are reliable sources available to study such things so i'll pass on Ra. 

Poffo wrote:

Anyway, I recently noticed that you had the put the word "fool" as the title under your user name, which synched up with my current research and learning themes.  The funny thing is that around that time I had put in my MSN name "[Poffo]...is a Fool" and had to keep telling inquiring friends to mind the capital F lest they think I was in a state of self-loathing. There IS a difference between a fool and a Fool, as there is between an i and the I.  I even got an email of reassurance that I wasn't the crazy one in the Ra debate in Magnetics and Ascension/b]...

Flattery will get you no- where Poffo.
You're clearly personally offended by me and still going ad hominem.  You might have noticed that i have not attributed the things to David Wilcock or yourself that you are attributing to me so far in your reply.  Hopefully it will get better from here on.   
Also, i've never thought democracy was a good way to determine truth.  Popular reinforcement or "majority" opinion can never determine these things.  So i just post my views and i don't rely on agreement from others as the measure of truth.  I guess that makes me "the crazy one".

Poffo wrote:

What kind of Fool already has his mind already made up going in and balks at anything which goes against it?  And wouldn't a real Fool be humble in his learnings and not try to force them down people's throats (which is clearly a violation of the 5th Chakra Protection Act tongue) <- my inanity, not Ra's.

I wouldn't know what kind of Fool would Poffo.  Right now i'm thinking you're doing a fine job of making up your own mind on this "Ra" issue and you are baulking at everything that goes against it?  When we're looking into a mirror, these questions become redundant.  Your mind is also made up on what constitutes humility.  My assertions and direct questioning of Ra's humble offering and likewise on the "heavy metal music thread" have offended you because you are personally invested in both.  I would think that anyone challenging someone's sacred cows is not going to be percieved as humble.  You're stirred up Poffo and your projecting your troubles my way.  Anyone who reads what i've written on these threads that you mention will come to their own conclusions about what constitutes humility, assertiveness, honest enquiry and honest opinion.  Like anyone, i speak what i feel is true and i qualify my views where necessary.  Others can decide it  for themselves and shouldn't be offended by me.       

Poffo wrote:

nexus wrote:

My point with all this was to point out that, although i share [b]Poffo's respect and affection for Edgar Cayce, i would be very careful of putting him on a pedestal and then transferring that over to David Wilcock.

Poffo wrote:

I would be careful of putting me on a pedestal too....wink

I wouln't do that.

Poffo wrote:

nexus wrote:

I was responding to Poffo's unqualified one liner...  "He's the re- incarnation of edgar Cayce for Christ's sake".  For the sake of Christ, who is the spirit of truth within us we must realise that no- one is infallible.  Edgar wasn't in his prior incarnations and Wilcock isn't in this life either.  He may actually be mistaken on crucial matters, whether or not that can be attributed to ego.  I was asking the question because i am at a loss to know why he would overlook such gross errors.

Poffo wrote:

nexus, I was trying to make a joke, hence the "wink".  'twas supposed to be a play on his "reincarnation of Edgar Cayce" fame and foundation, while also pointing to the fact that the soul of Edgar Cayce was one who respected and attempted to channel the Christ essence in life.....get it? :

You may have been playing with the one liner, but it reads like a statement of unqualified acceptance for Wilcock.  Whether or not you had said it i still would have written my post regardless of your (still evident) unqualified acceptance of the Ra material. 

Poffo wrote:

We know Cayce and Wilcock aren't perfect so why is their infallibility such a contentious issue?  Shouldn't the quality of fruit speak for the parental tree?

My mum used to say a similar thing to me.  "We all make mistakes" she would say.  But if ever i brought one of her mistakes to her attention she couldn't accept it.  Same with your statement here.  It's easy to say that "Nobody ever said Wilcock and Cayce are infallible".... But if i point to the mistakes of Wilcock or "Ra" your defence is total. 

Poffo wrote:

nexus wrote:

The idea would be unthinkable if not for the deadly lies folded into the "Ra"material and the way the whole thing is so tailor made for this one soul.  Cayce said he would return as a "liberator of humanity".  Could that have been an invitation to some group (astra and / or physical) to give him a dud message for humanity?   And i am not simply refering to the silly errors (of grammar and syntax) which the silly "C"s are referring to in their % accuracy count for the "Ra" material.  (as if those kinds of errors matter as much as the question of "IS THIS TRUE?")

Poffo wrote:

Deadly lies?  I'm willing to bet that a significantly higher percentage of the population who have read the Law of One books have been brought further into LIFE than those who it has somehow, in the "nexus Scheme" way of looking at it, brought into death because of Ra's ob(liv)ious deception.

I explained what i see is wrong with the false choice "Ra" offers humanity on several threads.  Anyone who chooses STS will not ascend.  They will re-incarnate or go into the lower astral plane.  If he goes into the astral he goes into a sub- human state.  If ever, the only rising he can achieve from there is back into human form.  Also, anyone who chooses a path of 51% service to others will not necessarily ascend.  "Ra" has got his facts wrong.  I'm free to point that out to anyone who will listen.  And you are free to dissagree. I've been happy with that arrangement here. 

Poffo wrote:

What if I told you that I have seen their tailoring work within the fabric of my soul's wandering reincarnational spectrum? Wait, I just told you.... tongue .

Going by some of the things you've said to me here and going by what i see in the "Ra" material, i would probably just take it with a grain of salt.

Poffo wrote:

The Lo1 teachings have had a profound impact on my reawakening this time around (as well as others for sure).  I have been able to extract knowledge out of those 4 tiny books, and new things each time, that have led to the development of my personal philosophy/cosmology which contain (to the best of my knowledge) new keys for the esoteric locks that hide away truth from the light of day.  Each time reading the series I extract more, and I think you could say this about any inspirational text.  I have had FAR too many POSITIVE synchronicities surrounding this material and information contained within it to deny for me, using maximum discernment power at hand, the huge personal relevance as well as the load of truth it contains within its obvious distortions.

There are obvious distortions?  What are they?

Poffo wrote:

I don't think it was written exclusively for me, but I think I was written for it wink

smile

Poffo wrote:

Of course there are distortions within the Law of One sessions, mostly because they were:

A) channeled
B) ...by humans!

But are the distortions enough to make you shrug your shoulders at the entire body of information? To declare the Ra source a "dud" based on some things you can't personally wrap your paradigm around (different explanation of esoteric "bodies", density graduation/ascension, the STS/STO soul polarity,...) would with wise eyes be seen as philosophical suicide.

Not simply different explanations Poffo.  And not simply different terminology.  If you know what i am saying and what Ra is saying then the differences are not merely superficial.  The paradigm is different.  This is what i have been calling the "Ra scheme" and i believe it is off.  Even though i ask questions of "Ra" i am not simply demanding a reflection of my own terms.  I am contrasting the differences in the paradigms.  Others can decide from that what is true or not.  "Ra" justifies evil as an essential and necessary part of the ONE and invites you to choose it as one valid path to oneness.  That , among other distortions of truth, is what Don Elkins was saying in his lecture.  Some people will take that advice.  And they will have more to worry about than philosophical suicide.

When is information so distorted it warrants dismissal?  How gross does error have to be?  We all have a different idea about that.   

Poffo wrote:

I am Poffo. I leave you now in the love and in the light of the one infinite Creator. Go forth then rejoicing in the power and in the peace of the one infinite Creator. Adonai. <- joke big_smile

Last edited by nexus (2008-02-07 14:46:55)

Offline

 

#29 2008-02-07 23:36:31

Poffo
Member
Registered: 2005-12-20

Re: David Wilcock: Free Video Seminar

You don't seem to get it...

While I have been heavily influenced by the Ra material, I DO NOT take it blindly as a complete set of truths.  I happen to resonate with a lot of the material and have sought to understand it to the best of my ability in light of other resonant sources, to see if I can patch together the parallels existing between them and come up with something new that cuts through a lot of the "distortions" of each source, and they all have them.  David Wilcock is for sure imbalanced in this area and I agree with you that he has bought the Ra material wholesale, but I wouldn't want you to assume that I was the same.

As I have pointed out, it is clear that you have made up your mind on this material, thereby negating any possible difference in your thinking that could be made by anyone who posts a disagreement with your position.  You make conclusive statements such as "Anyone who chooses STS will not ascend." and ""Ra" has got his facts wrong" and then pretend to be interested in explanations against your theory.  You say we are free to disagree, but why aren't you free to be open to the possibility that the Ra source isn't negative and that your conspiracy theory is coloured by ignorance of the source itself?  As I have said, you have made up your mind and thus the questions you ask can never be fulfilled to your satisfaction.

nexus wrote:

While you were clearly taking them personally i was simply pointing out to anyone who is interested in the question of "Ra's" authenticity that these are the questions that arise in my mind.  They were questions to "Ra" not to you Poffo (except the 2 or 3 questions i asked you in response to your own defense of "Ra" to me.)  They were my own deconstructions of some of the "Ra" material presented by Don Elkins (and some which you happened to post in "Ra's" defence) and questions regarding some of the gross errors in the Ra material which i have discussed here and on other threads.  Any bad vibes you are experiencing by reading it are not coming from me and is more likely your own defensiveness.

At the end of that post you wrote "Cheers Poffo" which led me to believe it was overwhelmingly directed at me.  It did get confusing when you were asking Ra questions, but the post was clearly the instigation of a war of ideas between us, especially since you had nothing to respond to my last post in the other thread (Disturbed, metal music).  The only problem is that you have built up an impenetrable wall which will not let anything from the other side through.  This keeps your fort secure but impedes any re-development that could take place during/following the "battle".  I'm willing to admit to the bad vibes coming from my own defensiveness, but do you not take into account the role you play by asking ignorant questions and then cutting down the thoughtful answers you receive?

It may seem that I have taken these subjects personally and have been defending them but you have misinterpreted my intent, which isn't exactly hard on an internet forum, hehe.  What I have seen from you is several definitive statements that such and such is wrong or goes against true salvation or whatever, and so I see the need to take and present a more balanced perspective (based on MY knowledge pertaining to that which you deride) for the sake of current and future readers of these threads. I wouldn't want to see any readers that are unfamiliar with the Ra material to be put off by your sweeping statements against it.  Let it be known that I appreciate your questions based on your own disagreement with the material, but

While you have only attacked any opposing ideas that get in the way of your current paradigm, I have at least made an effort (made harder by your peculiar approach) to take your ideas in and account for them....but I've realized that debating with you is a losing game no matter what, because you have MADE UP YOUR MIND.

nexus wrote:

If you had spied with your little eye my past embodiments, you wouldn't be saying that Poffo.  But again, because you'd rather psycho-analyse me than deal with your own feelings (or my most pertinent questions) you're simply projecting your disturbance onto me.  I can assure you i do not profit from that.

The "(past lives?)" comment was, as the question mark indicates, a guess at possible reasoning.  I don't have the same gift that Cayce did so of course I cannot determine the truth of such a guess by accessing the Akashic records, but I wouldn't doubt it based on your history on this board (trying to shoot down the positions of others because they don't agree with yours).  You have made your puritanism known, I'm just trying to see how it effects your interactions with other well-meaning seekers, especially knowing how past life themes affect current ones..

I am disturbed, but not so much by my own insecurities, more to do with the fact that you make sweeping statements without actually being familiar with the source, whether it's metal music or Ra, which causes me to feel the need to "defend" against ignorant assumptions.  That is an imbalance that I'm trying to work on, but when someone flagrantly disregards someone else's greater knowledge of something and puts their own on a pedestal...let's just say it irks me.  I'm doing myself a disservice by even responding to your posts but hopefully the good to come out of it will be heightened discernment on both ends.

While you believe that you are making honest inquiries, you fail to see the impossibility of those inquiries to be honestly answered because of your attitude to replies.

If you really want to debate Ra and it's "scheme" it really would make more sense to take it to a thread already devoted to the subject or to create a new one for your particular concerns.

It is curious to me that in the remaining few weeks of NR you have in two seperate threads tried to make out the Ra source to be negative or very misguided, knowing that A LOT of the people on here (obviously not all) resonate with this source a lot.  While you are of course free to express your concerns, the attitude that you take when doing so tends to diminish from the potency of your arguments.  It would be a shame (to me) for some of the last threads in this wonderful forum to be bumped up for the sake of trying to debunk and steer others away (consciously or unconsciously) from the Law of One material when I know the positive effect it has had on so many seekers.

Perhaps that is just the conspiracy theorist in me coming out, but nevertheless this whole thing is very curious.

I don't intend to carry on this argument any further.  However, I WILL try to answer some of the questions in the Magnetics and Ascension thread (whether directed to Ra or me) but only for posterity's sake and to clear up any genuine confusion you may have.

With all that out of the way, I still love you as I have since we set out on this adventure into separation.  Keep it real nexus.

Offline

 

#30 2008-02-08 08:24:56

SiriArc
AD VO ZIN
From: Denver
Registered: 2005-08-03

Re: David Wilcock: Free Video Seminar

http://forum.noblerealms.org/pics/555_th_animation_thumb2.gif


11   23   11

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson