Personal Questions Summary 2

Newcomer Corner
1

Hey friends, I’ve been thinking about some new questions lately. If you’re interested, feel free to join the discussion!

Queestion 1

First of all, whether positive or negative entities, all must obey free will — also known as the First Distortion. My question is: is obeying free will a subjective rule, like human laws, policies, or moral codes? Or is it an objective law of nature, like those in physics or chemistry?

An objective law does not change based on how it is interpreted — it simply exists. For example, the laws of physics are in effect regardless of whether a person has studied physics or not. In contrast, a subjective rule depends on one’s perspective or understanding. For instance, whether an action is considered legal depends on local policies and laws.

Ra once referred to free will as the First Distortion. This initially led me to interpret it as an objective law. I then tried to understand the origin and existence of the universe by following the sequence of the First Distortion, Second Distortion, and so on.

However, some of the later content left me quite confused. I read multiple times about certain Confederation entities who acted with good intentions, but after the fact, their actions were seen by other entities as violations of free will. This made me feel that free will might actually be a subjective rule. Whether or not an action violates free will seems to depend on individual interpretation — much like how lawyers and judges argue and interpret the law in a courtroom.

This made me deeply curious — is free will ultimately subjective or objective? As I reflected on this question, I began to consider how we even define what is subjective and what is objective.

Another point: from the 3D perspective, due to the veil, thought and matter are separated — which gives rise to the distinction between subjective and objective. So beyond the 3D perspective, does this distinction still exist?

Question 2

Questioner

Can you tell me what percentage of those are third, fourth, fifth, sixth density, etc.? Roughly, very roughly.

Ra

I am Ra. A percentage seventeen for first density, a percentage twenty for second density, a percentage twenty-seven for third density, a percentage sixteen for fourth density, a percentage six for fifth density. The other information must be withheld. The free will of your future is not making this available.

We shall speak on one item. There is a fairly large percentage, approximately thirty-five percent of the intelligent planets, which do not fit in the percentiles. These mysteries are of sixth and seventh density and are not available for our speaking.

Densities 1 through 5 account for a total of 86%, leaving 14% for densities 6 through 8. But why aren’t the proportions for these higher densities provided? The given percentages are already approximate, and it’s mentioned that many planets don’t fit into these categories. So providing exact numbers for the higher densities wouldn’t really clarify much. Why is it believed that revealing these proportions would violate free will?

I have given this further thought. When it says that 35% of intelligent planets do not fit into the percentiles, does that mean these 35% of planets don’t fit into the distribution of densities 1 through 5, or does it mean that this 35% belong to densities 6 through 8 and simply weren’t discussed?

I have another question regarding the measurement of free will. Why does Ra say, ‘The free will of your future is not making this available’? The audience reading the Ra material is very niche—after providing these numbers, is there really anything within this small group that could influence the future direction of this civilization? Moreover, even if the distribution percentages for densities 6 through 8 were revealed—whether 4%, 5%, 5%, or 6%, 5%, 3%, or 10%, 3%, 1%—the distribution could basically be enumerated by exhaustive guessing. But what would these numbers actually explain? What relationship would they have? Why would they affect future free will?

This really confuses me. Suppose the proportions were revealed—would any Ra material reader actually gain some information from these numbers that could influence the future direction of Earth’s civilization? And would that then force Ra to withhold this information?

2

Turn to the teachings of the ancient mysteries, they have all the answers to your questions. You just need to learn how to think in a non-modern way. Oahspe can also provide answers to your questions.

2 Likes
3

I would say there is no “must this or that” when it comes to free will.

2 Likes
4

Interesting questions. I am confused by the quote (72.8) where free will and the Law of Confusion are not the same thing. When it said that Orion’s group was infringing on free will, but honoring the Law of Confusion. Apparently there is some difference between the free will of an embodied individual and Free Will in the sense of the First Distortion. That is as if there are two variants: Free Will and free will (in the lower register).

Firstly, those of negative polarity do not operate with respect to free will unless it is necessary. They call themselves and will infringe whenever they feel it possible.

Secondly, they are limited by the great Law of Confusion in that, for the most part, they are unable to enter this planetary sphere of influence and are able to use the windows of time/space distortion only insofar as there is some calling to balance the positive calling. Once they are here, their desire is conquest. — 72.8

2 Likes
5

If I may just uh express my understanding of free will as the first distortion and free will as what we see are as I see you seeing as an entergy’s consciousness. First of all, free will as the first distortion. I would like to point out that I believe raw is using a distortion as in a change of electric signal. Referencing the one infinite creator as an electrical energy. Distortion relates to a change in this. When the questioner asked, what is the first action or the first? Thing that happened in history all the way back to the start of God, and he said, the first distortion, the second distortion and the third distortion. And then all other distortions are of equal infinite value. So when he says distortion, in a way that it is a placement on a chart, it is within the start of a change. The first part that changes is free. Will you will choose to change? This leads to love. You will build the change. Love is the creative principle. This always leads to light. It will be built of light. What is built after this is up to the person?Wielding the first three distortions.

Now, free will, as consciousness is not how I perceive this connection to what we is interpret. Free will as and the spirit. Itself see the raw references that even spirits may choose enslavement, because they are intimidated by the infinite choices of the universe. So we would not see this person having free will, but still having a spirit. In existence, free will is the capability upon which to choose for yourself. And not so much how to describe the self more of an attribute of the self and the self would be more a mystery upon which if we had to describe the free will vibration, how would you describe it?And since everything is matter and energy, what is the matter that the free will is made up of and what vibration is it?Resonating at..

I hope there’s not too many errors. I’m using my phone’s speech to text option, which allows me to go over the thought, from beginning to end coherently, without getting stuck, trying to type, which is amazingly slow compared to my thought process

2 Likes
6

Thanks a lot for the advice! It would be even better if you could share an article or a paragraph as a reference.

7

Sorry, I’m not a native English speaker, so sometimes the nuances of certain words might not be very precise. I hope the main idea still came through clearly.

8

It seems that positive entities tend to respect free will, since violating it would harm their polarity. However, what exactly counts as respecting free will depends on the entity’s own judgment and assessment.

Negative entities don’t respect other’s free will, but that doesn’t mean they can do whatever they want without limits. There’s always something that restrains them, and this restraint is known as the Law of Confusion. From this perspective, I also see the Law of Confusion as a lower-level expression of respect free will.

It’s similar to the relationship between law and morality. Some people go beyond the minimum legal standards and actively strive to improve their character, using morality as their guide. Others, however, try to push the limits as much as possible, following the principle that anything not explicitly forbidden is allowed. They choose to act without restraint unless the law stops them. In this analogy, free will is like morality, while the Law of Confusion is like the law.

9

Perhaps Dewey Larson’s theory can offer an explanation: free will is not made of matter and energy—instead, it’s free will that comes first, and only then do matter and energy follow.

10

Free will is the first distortion does not mean that free will comes first before love and light. When the questioner asked, what is the first action ra explains by explaining the first 3 distortions, the questioner did not ask. What are the first three actions, or the first three things that are at the start of existence
This is easier to understand If we see gods free will gods love and gods light as things that always have existed equally upon each other. Otherwise, the first change with love is the creative principle would be that love chooses to create free will, which would then make no sense without free, will. How did love choose to create The first action is the first change, and this first change is explained by showing three pieces that changed in the order upon which they changeed. At first I also assumed that free will was the first to exist, but if free will was the first piece to exist. How did it create love without being the creative principle?Itself