OK, someone help me. I am 71 years old. I knew Jane Roberts of the world famous SETH material. I have had the RA Law of One books for decades. But I have a real problem with QUO. Why does QUO seem to use a thousand words to say something that SETH or RA would have stated in perhaps 10 to 50 words? Why does QUO engage in an endless word salad? I have listened intently, but come up with almost NOTHING after listening, whereas SETH was very clear in mainstream language, and RA was also remarkably clear in comparison to QUO’s dithering on and on. Is QUO a required taste? Does a person have to listen to hours of this stuff to suddenly “click” and understand what is being said in far too many words? Do people offer allegiance to QUO because they assume that the words must be profound because they can’t understand a word “they” are saying? I am listening to a Brian Scott narration of a recent QUO session about channeling and UFOs. I can summarize the first 14 minutes as saying “Hi, glad to be with you. Take what you want from this and leave the rest. Pathways must be developed for channeling to be developed through creativity and spontaneity. Meditation is good.” There. I said what SETH would have said instead of this constant on and on and on and on and on. And if someone is tempted to just think I am just too dumb to get it, I have a Masters Degree in Systems Design and Software Engineering. I have devised complex computer systems. I think I should be able to cut through the fat and get to what this entity is trying to say without spending hours doing so. Is QUO just a conscious creation of the team rather than a deep trance entity? So often the QUO readings seem like something a person would create based on what they think channeling should be - lots of obtuse verbiage, no straight clear answers about anything except by reading between the endless lines. IF QUO is consciously created, then to me it is a form of story telling in a very structured stilted language. But why should we care what someone draws from their conscious thoughts? I want trance information, not some creative venture by people who sit in a chair and let their imagination wander. AND QUANTITY DOES NOT EQUATE TO QUALITY, FOLKS. Convince me otherwise without insults. For the record, at one time I bought the very expensive 18 volumes of QUO sessions in book form. I just gave up in disgust and sold them on ebay. So help me understand the QUO appeal. Thanks. I have honestly tried many times to get into QUO and always end up frustrated at what at times seems to be outright gibberish.
Maybe the intended import of their verbiage just passes you by?
I ask this because the purpose of their communication is to point out spiritual principles underlying our ordinary experience, and your query shows no concern for spiritual principles, only for the presentation. So, it’s possible there’s more content there than you are interacting with.
Assuming that you do have interest in spiritual principles as well as presentation, I would mention that I have, by far, found the best way of studying the material to be using the search function on the LLR website. This way you obviate all the preliminary verbiage and go straight to the topic that interests you.
Hi, I’ve read the first two Ra Material books. I haven’t read anything from Quo, so can’t comment on that. I can only say that I liked most of what was in the Ra books.
But I also want to say that I share your perspective on things. You are correct, in my view, to ask such questions.
I seek truth, or at least honest approximations of it. I do not wish for dogma.
PS. I also design complex software stuff. 
Perhaps we share other thoughts too?
Reminded me of quote. Had to search for it. Basically, if you understand something, you should be able to summarise it succinctly.
From what I understand, this group is comprised of Hatonn (4th density), Latwii of 5th density and Ra (6th density). When Ra speaks it is Latwii that is translating. Hatonn is present mainly for the loving support but they too also express themselves every so often. Within this dynamic of entities consider their perspective of trying not to give away information that could distort our understanding further. They are guiding us to an idea that we have to figure out on our own. Let’s say for example, that you were to ask about something that 3rd density is capable of doing but could create a delusional way of approaching this. In the Circle R group there is a channeling that mentions invisibility.
Again tonight we are going to concentrate cosmic energy here for you, for each of you here this night has need of this. I, my beloved ones, I am going to give you a little technique, and explain to you somewhat how this is done. In case you are not aware these lines of cosmic energy are continually flowing at all times through your atmosphere, through your body. They are the life giving energies, without which none of you, nor any life, would exist. It is through these lines of energy or force that you live and move and have your being.
Now what we are doing here tonight, is causing a great mass of these lines of force to be bent in and concentrated in your midst, as we bend light. They are techniques not known to man. By bending light you can cause an object to be invisible to the human eye, for you see only the light reflected from this object, and so these lines of force can be bent.
And now, my friends, I am going to ask you to bend these lines even more and you can do this. Now, if you will become relaxed, there is no need for strain, and as you relax, visualize these lines, traveling in great quantities, here all about you, traveling through you, see them in a great mass, and then, if you will, visualize a portion of this mass of light visualize it as bending, curving, into a more concentrated mass of energy, and then visualize this concentrated mass flowing to the part of your physical structure that has most need for this help, and you can change it about, concentrating it to wherever you desire.
Remember, beloved friends, that within your thought pattern you have great power. Through concentration of this power of mind you can direct energies. You can cause things to take place that you desire. Have great confidence in the power of your mind, for in reality, beloved ones, all is mind. Now, have I made myself clear as to what I would like you to do?
Beloved friends, I am going to speak to you for a few moments on the subject of consciousness, and as I speak, allow yourself to become completely relaxed, and I, through the help of your wisdors, will keep a concentration of this energy here, and I want each of you to practice this technique as I speak.
The seeker has the choice to think of this in two ways. One could be to practice this technique until they can either make objects become invisible or make themselves invisible. Or the seeker could think of how energy works in general and use this to benefit others. The Q’uo channelings work in much the same way. We are given a choice to further our understanding with a hint of information.
The channeling I am referring to can be found at Man, Consciousness and Understanding - L/L Research Download zip folder and then look for PDF named 1961_1024
You see, for me, for example, Q’uo is not “word salad” as you call it. For me, on the other hand, Seth or Ra can sometimes be “dumb” and pronounce it stiff, simplistic and straightforward. I’m not saying that they don’t provide information and inspiration, on the contrary such Ra has changed my life and it’s the basis for my development. However, I find those of Q’uo to be intelligent, pertinent and talkative. And I prefer them the most out of all channeling materials.
I will say this, Q’uo is hardly something to read, the way one reads a book, much less a newspaper. It is something to let into yourself and let it grow inside, through contemplation, meditation and imagination. I don’t read Q’uo too much because reading session after session makes no sense, I try to work with this material in lesser doses.
I have a request. Please give some Q’uo material some excerpt or session that is particularly hopeless and you consider it an example of such word salad, or maybe even for you it’s some “s**t”, I have no problem with that. Why don’t you provide the excerpt and I, from my humble perspective and maybe someone else will plug in, interpret the excerpt and suggest to you how you can use it, how you can benefit from it. What do you think?
The first thing to remember is that LLR performed two types of channeling: trance channeling and conscious channeling.
To our knowledge, only one entity was trance channeled: Ra. According to those of Ra, Ra is a sixth-density being who operates at an energy level which doesn’t work well with conscious channeling. The specific trance channeling methodology employed by LLR allowed Ra to speak directly through the instrument (Carla). To use an analogy, Carla got out of the driver’s seat of her own body and let Ra drive for a while. It is for this reason that the Ra contact has unparalleled precision of language: Ra themselves chose which words would be spoken through the instrument. Though Ra notes their difficulty dealing with numerical quantities as we understand it, they are quite successful in constructing a novel memeplex (a meme complex) with careful word choice (for example, using “density” rather than “dimension”).
Virtually all other channeled materials are consciously channeled. My understanding of conscious channeling is that an “idea-object” (I’m inventing that term here, so take it with some salt) appears in the mind of the channeler, and the channeler’s task is to describe that idea-object. To follow the car analogy, the channeler is driving while the channeled entity is giving directions. The directions appear in the form of a picture, and though you see and receive an intuitive understanding of where to go, it’s quite another thing to explain it to another, particularly because you may only draw on your own vocabulary and descriptive abilities.
The other responses have discussed the nature of Q’uo in some detail. In my personal opinion, Q’uo is verbose because they’re communicating precise idea-objects. There’s the saying that a picture is a thousand words. That’s true, and it’s also true that it takes more words to exactly and completely describe certain pictures than others. To speak precisely, the information entropy of a Q’uo idea-object is, in my opinion, among the highest of any consciously-channeled entity. To accurately reproduce that idea-object simply requires more bits, which usually means more words are necessary, though linguistic precision also does the trick.
In summary, a conscious channeler will try to vocalize the whole idea-object. When the idea-object is precisely formed with many details, more words are required to describe it. I believe Q’uo provides rich, detailed idea-objects, so more words are typically required to accurately describe the object.
To the question about Q’uo, I tried to translate these sessions more than once, and it doesn’t work) I realized that I can only translate early sessions. Since my mindset is probably more scientific than literary…
Do you mean google translate is not working?
No, not that)) I mean, I think of many Q’uo sessions as marshmallows. Carla used to say the same thing about the Ramtha) Perhaps she didn’t realize then that her sessions could be the same… I apologize for my English. I have not seen any mention of Q’uoo acting on people in the same way as Ra. As the initiator…By the way, why doesn’t Google Translate work on the library’s website?
PS. Perhaps I’m just more impressed with the topic of Don’s search, as far as philosophy, parapsychology, and Western magic are concerned… I decided to go the same way as Don and this search led me to many interesting things) This was the real path of initiation/individuation
This brings forward some interesting points. First, as they say themselves, the quality of the answers are in direct proportion to the quality of the seeking. Some of the best Q’uo sessions are from around 2004-2006 where they did “special meditations” for individuals for a $150 fee. Many of these people (myself included) were serious seekers asking serious questions from a place of personal gravity, and the answers reflect this.
For example, if someone asks, “What is spiritual gravity?” the answer will be fluffy and general as compared to if someone says, “I’ve been working for many years to increase spiritual gravity and I have the following questions…”
Second, the format of follow up questions is randomized, not focused, and this can frustrate serious students who are doing focused study. But the search page (click on the magnifying glass) cuts through this for those who are looking for topical information.
Personally, over many years, I have found far more useful information among the conscious channeling sessions than in the Ra Material, in large part because you’re looking through thousands of sessions rather than just over 100, so a far greater range of topics is included. Some of it is quite deep and helpful to one who seeks the Heart of Being.
As I remember, Quo would repeatably suggest
they did not want to pose any stumbling block,
for people, and would kindly ask people to
disregard information that did not resonate
for whatever reason. Possibly in the context
of the query, quantity without quality is worthy
of disregard for some people.
The Ra materials can read somewhat dry
and the feelings the readings convey don’t
always come across as warm and fuzzy.
I might argue that the audience for the
Ra materials might be 5th density wisdom
folks.
By contrast, the feelings that Quo can invoke
through reading can seem a higher degree
warm and fuzzy, as if the intended audience
might be 4th density love folks. In discovering
Quo, I felt as if this was like the second coming
of Christ, so immensely beautiful in ways
uncommonly found in writings.
Writing love songs inspired by Quo may be
easier than love songs inspired by Ra, unless
you can penetrate a hidden deeper layer.
I think of this desire of Quo, to not infringe
free will so to speak, as highly considerate.
This golden rule of not infringing another
somehow converting to not being infringed
upon, may be at the crux of this topic.
It’s a simple reason to admire Quo.
Yes, that’s what I was talking about, about the mindset, the psyche. There are different psychological types of people. Therefore, some people perceive information of a feeling type well, others of a scientific type. From my experience, I can say that two psychological types do not always understand each other well enough.
It’s just not your style, and you have permission to move on to what calls to your heart. As much as I love Q’uo, we’d be in a tight spot if that was our only resource for spiritual and metaphysical information. Luckily, we have many from which to choose, and I commend you to the task of choosing with love and light.
EDIT: One little comment on the quantity thing, since that, too, used to bug me. It really wasn’t until I started practicing as an instrument that I understood that the words – the scalar unit being measured by OP – are merely means of conveyance for the underlying vibration of love. The love, the essence, the meaning and content are what matter, not the form or packaging.
This means that sometimes the words serve the vibration and rhythm of contact more than the semantic value. Some words are product, other words are lubricant. If you think this is an unsatisfactory explanation, then I wholeheartedly agree, and yet that’s the best I can do. Sometimes the pump has to be primed, and in my view a lot of the words are merely mechanical means towards moments of inspiration at best.
It’s comforting to see someone sharing an honest opinion on this forum counter to the beliefs held by the majority. I share your perspective regarding Quo, and believe the current channeling material being offered is more than likely derived from the instruments conscious minds as it seems lacking in many aspects when compared to the Ra Material, or even earlier conscious channelings. I’ve considered it a possibility that Quo was initially received as a pure to near pure channel however as time has progressed, the group changed, the questions became more transient and the transmission was lost and/or replaced with the conscious minds of those channeling. Either way I’m not knocking those who resonate with Quo or the group channeling them, it is just very heavily distorted towards love over wisdom, so it will not resonate with everyone.
The answer to those questions… all are NO…
Quo did not asked for any of it, as matter of fact he recommends the opposite.
But before we begin we would ask each of you to guard the gates of your perception carefully.
Do not allow our comments and thought to sway you unless they seem to be particularly resonant to you. If they do appeal to you, by all means work with them, but if they do not appeal to you and do not seem lively and helpful, then please leave them behind.
We are no more of an authority for you than you are for us.
Please realize that you are the authority for your spiritual journey and use your discrimination well.
If you will do that for us then we will not be concerned about infringing upon your free will.
We thank you for this consideration.
– Quo
The above, in tone, is similar to one of Siddhartha’s saying, although Quo added more technical details.
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
– Siddhartha
I share your perspective on this.
I would have been interested to see @SeasonedSeeker thinker reply. I would have been genuinely interested to see what he had to write. I know how it feels to be the only one speaking against the narrative, as I generally find that it’s me doing it.
Like I say, I haven’t read Quo but would have been interested to hear alternative perspectives. At the same time, I recognise how important this is to many people and feel the same way about Ra Material.
Everything we read when we read Q’uo is distorted toward wisdom (this is their knowledge). In fact, everything we get from Q’uo is purely knowledge. Love is something that is felt, it is energy. Only those present during the session can experience Q’uo’s love (if love is present) or not (if love is not present). I am tending to believe that love is present.
Those who attend at the session receive love and knowledge (Q’uo’s wisdom). We who read this receive only knowledge. Unless, while reading it, we connect in some way with Q’uo pull their presence and can feel their love being outside the channeling sessions (I, in my subjective feeling, had that) but that is something else, however it is possible to coming through opening on them while reading, thinking, and applying their knowledge. But that is something else, at first we just receive knowledge/light.
I can tell you that I have had years of reading, writing, meditating and contemplating knowledge of spirituality and metaphysics. In my opinion, Q’uo is intellectually demanding and it is even more demanding to feel certain things if we are only dealing with metaphors. Sometimes it can only be understood by reading it slowly sentence by sentence and contemplating over each paragraph before moving on.
To understand them and bring them up it is not enough to be intelligent as many of you are, if not all of you, I am also including those people who are critical of Q’uo. It’s about a certain spiritual connection too them, I think, maybe even being a spiritual family to which Q’uo belongs to begin able to really deeply understand them. Maybe to really resonate with them it is required to have some resources stored in the subconscious even before birth. I don’t know if I am such a person. I’m also not sure it works that way, it’s just my opinion.
It is possible that some resources stored in the subconscious gained before incarnation may be needed to perceive them properly. Much of what Q’uo says cannot be grasped by the mind alone (for example, a trained mind for logical thinking of scientist or computer scientist), more the mind is something that brings in Q’uo knowledge so that it can blossom inside, on the ground of the subconscious, spiritual mind and higher emotions.
By the way, what is actually knowledge that we can relate to light? Light is a distortion of love. Light/knowledge/wisdom flows from love, just as golden pebbles are carried by the current of fresh water (love), which, when strained from the water, are the building blocks of information that make up knowledge (light). These pebbles can always return there finding purification and possibly be carried even further by the current of the river of love.
Making blanket generalizations that Q’uo is “word salad” or something similiar or that it comes from a “false” source is unmeritorious or It simply cannot be confirmed or denied and, as a result, can be discouraging others to reading Q’uo. I, on the other hand, would like to balance this and say that it is worth getting through it and spending a little more time to discover that value in Q’uo.
I think further discussion here would make sense if specific passages were given from those who are critical regard Q’uo, so that those who are Q’uo supporters can relate to it and help discover those treasures in Q’uo that are invisible at first glance.
Threads, like this one, really have a tremendous amount of potential if properly directed. One can agree with each other and adore Q’uo among Q’uo supporters. But there is nothing better than confronting the two camps in a constructive way, and constructive, to me, is talking about specific examples, specific quotes, so that one can address a specific thing from Q’uo’s content. So I repeat the appeal please give those who are antagonistic to Q’uo a specific example that you think is weak, hopeless, is word salad, etc. and why is that.
Forgive me, but I find I must reply.
Perhaps a better term than “word salad” would be tautology.
Much of what Q’uo says cannot be grasped by the mind alone (for example, a trained mind for logical thinking of scientist or computer scientist)
I wouldn’t be so certain.
Making blanket generalizations that Q’uo is “word salad” or something similiar or that it comes from a “false” source is unmeritorious or It simply cannot be confirmed or denied and, as a result, can be discouraging others to reading Q’uo.
I have free will and I take responsibility for what I read and don’t read.
I like to believe in things, not because they are nice or comforting, but because I think they are true (or at least as close to the truth as I can get).
Can we talk in such a way that you give a passage of Q’uo and constructively criticize it? And I’ll try to relate. It could be a good exercise for us…
Would you be able to give a paragraph or a few paragraphs of Q’uo channeling and comment on them? Especially those that are such tautologies for example. And could you say in general how you understand them, those passages, what you learned from them, or what you think is wrong with them?
Can we practice like this?