+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Community (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: Olio (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language (/showthread.php?tid=12383)
Pages:
1
2
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Parsons - 04-23-2016
I will have to disagree with you. I don't put the material (or Ra, for that matter) on a pedestal as some sort of holy work to blindly worship. I see Ra as just a group of people no better or worse than myself who happen to be in a higher density. To phrase that a different way, I do not see them as 'other than my other selves'. I view the material as more as a technical manual. That being said, I still regard it as the most important written work in recorded history.
My strike-through version of the material is aimed at the intermediate / advanced reader of the material. We all know that 'vibratory sound complex' refers to a word or specifically a name. So I strike through that to improve the flow of a sentence. Also we all know of Egypt, so I strike through phrases like 'as you call that portion of your planetary sphere'. No meaning is lost to the advanced seeker if they skip over parts like that.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Jade - 04-23-2016
I don't think you need to abandon your project, but I also don't agree with the blanket statement that an advanced seeker will lose no meaning. I truly feel the words create a "spell" of sorts (haha pun intended) and each word's placement was chosen for a reason. Altering the cadence of the sentences does lose something, for me.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Nicholas - 04-23-2016
More than anything, Parsons. I love the purity of your intention here. Truly, that's what matters the most. The outcome will be what it will be.
As Ra Said. "That you attempt to make this information available is, in your term, your service. The attempt, if it reaches one, reaches all."
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - third-density-being - 04-24-2016
Dear Parsons,
First of all I have to admit that I’ve reacted quite strongly and if I offended You, I apologize. It wasn’t my intention.
That being said, what I was writing about has nothing to do with “putting Ra Material – nor Ra Him/Her/It/Them-Self/Selves – on a pedestal” and it definitely has nothing to do with “worshiping”, or doing anything “blindly”.
I’ll start with quoting my own words, as I think their meaning was missed/misunderstood:
Quote:(…)this Material, which tries to describe things that are in fact beyond Our comprehension, and presents them in symbolic, indirect fashion.
This is the reason why I’ve expressed my protest.
You wrote:
(04-23-2016, 04:13 AM)Parsons Wrote: My strike-through version of the material is aimed at the intermediate / advanced reader of the material. We all know that 'vibratory sound complex' refers to a word or specifically a name. So I strike through that to improve the flow of a sentence.
First of all, what’s crucial in my opinion is not a “flow of a sentence”, but – to modify your own sentence – “flow of an understanding”. I’ve always thought that is/would be a goal of – as You called it – an “intermediate / advanced reader of the material”.
For me, and “advanced read” of Ra Materials is to move from Words to Word, from Phrase to Phrase and from Sentence to Sentence in building One’s understanding. Understanding, that is based on a symbols (Words) and symbolic understanding that Phrases and Sentences are building within One’s Mind.
“Advance read” which is always accompanied with sustained awareness of One’s own, intimate symbology that plays key role in building an understanding of Information contained/embodied within those Word-Symbols.
Simply example:
Quote:Ra: We found that the technology was reserved largely for those with the effectual mind/body distortion of power.
We found that – that indicate that Ra gained knowledge after the events were played out within the space/time. Very important information regarding limitations of a sixth-density-Being(s) which tells Us, that despite such advance, from Our perspective, position of Beingness that is so closely aligned with “Oneness”, He/She/It/They was/were unable to predict/drawn knowledge from His/Her/Its/Their own actions and it’s impact on the third-density-Beings present at that time on Earth. I can only assume that Ra’s understanding of “probable futures” is to such degree imperfect – even though He/She/It/They on many occasions used such phrase to describe “future” as: “your future” / “your space/time continuum distortion called future”. “Yours” – not His/Her/Its/Theirs – and yet He/She/It/They was/were surprised by it (!)
the technology – label/term “technology” that seems to refer to “pyramids” and their capability of “initiation” and “healing” an Entity. Quite peculiar term/label for a structure that harnesses natural/ever-present Qualities of space/time / time/space and focuses it to affect / interact with Human Being / Mind/Body/Spirit Complex. Quite divorced from Our own understanding of this term, which is used to describe “man-made components that by working/interacting together offers desired outcome that facilitate/increase know functions of Human Beings capability (i.e. to carry huge loads of matter, to reach in places unreachable for Human’s hands, etc.) or offers ones that are beyond Human Being abilities (i.e. advanced calculations, visual presentation, etc.). It all makes me think: Did/Have Ra listed all function of the pyramids? Was/Were Ra referring ”only” to pyramids, or was/were there something else as well, to which term “technology” referred to?
was reserved largely for those – so, not exclusively. Who else than had an access to this “technology”? Since pyramids are of enormous size and an access to it is quite easily controlled, it would suggest other “component of technology” were present besides pyramids themselves. Crystals? Maybe not, and maybe term “technology” was referring to the pyramids alone – but than again – who else had an access to them besides Entities described in second part of this sentence?
with effectual mind/body distortion of power – this is very interesting phrase. The “distortion of power”, which suggests that “power” itself is a distorted perception/understanding/concept of “mutual Beingness”. Furthermore that this “distortion” is present within Mind and Body, but not within the Spirit “aspect”/”part” of the Mind/Body/Spirit Complex. I, personally, compare it with my understanding of Great Arcanum, as I work with it and with each Grate Way of Mind and Body to “pinpoint” the possible origins of such distortion – which (again, in my opinion) starts with the Matrix of the Mind and focus One is creating – it’s directions, intensification, repetitiveness, etc. – and than, the way Mind is informed/Potentiated – which all influence – or more precisely induces corresponding Catalyst and later it’s “processing”/Experiencing. In fact, distortion present at the level of the Matrix of the Mind is profiling all other steps of the Great Way of the Mind which includes preferential perception of one Catalyst over the other. Especially word/label/symbol “effectual” may suggest such deep distortion (as present at the “level of the Matrix”). Similarly with the Great Way of the Body – at that time (ten thousands yeas ago) everyday reality was far more harsh for the Body, than it is in Our times (for the most part at least). That surely not only influenced / reinforced an attitude of the Mind (as previously described) but also were bringing the “biological/physical signals” to the Being of strict and ruthless hierarchy (Matrix of the Body and the way it is Informed) that is unavoidable and that to provide Self with some alleviation of such harsh/ruthless consequences of mentioned hierarchy, would be to exclude the access to technology (offered by Ra) for/from most – to give an access to it based on “personal benefits” / offerings that would increase comfort/decrease probability of suffering of such Beings – not to mention the “power” that would give such Entities, whom would decide who will have an access, and who will not.
In above context the term/label/word/symbol “power” is interpreted as “power over Other-Selves” and not necessarily as “special abilities” – which with such approach were most likely not available to those Beings - this conclusion is based on what Ra said later, about “lip service” only, without true Seekings undertaken.
Above, of course, is presented my understanding and I’m perfectly aware that it may be incorrect to some (even large) degree. However this is what I understand by “advanced read”. To examine each word/phrase/sentence in as detailed manner as possible. It is especially important, when Ra speaks about such abstract phenomenon as time/space, One Infinite Creator, higher densities, etc.
Above was quite easy to analyze. Very hard parts are when Ra is speaking of the beginning of the Creation, for example, which is still incomprehensible for me at this point (and I doubt it ever will be, but I will be trying to understand it as best, as I can). To be constantly aware what’s “behind Words/symbols” that Ra is/are using – literally – what comes to your Mind when You read those labels/words/symbols – what images, how You relate them together, what are your points-of-reference, how You build a “conscious Mind representation” of what You are reading. This is very delicate and arduous process and of course should be at any time supported by an Intuition, as acknowledged source of valid information/knowledge.
All I have Best in me for You
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Parsons - 04-24-2016
I only said the bit about putting the material on a pedestal / worship because that is the vibe I was getting from you (and incidentally some others). Apparently my perception was incorrect; apologies if I have offended. I am not saying that viewpoint is a bad thing at all; I was simply saying that is not how I regard the material. To phrase my viewpoint a different way: I view anything and everything as sacramental, thus I don't feel the need to put the Ra Material on a pedestal because it is all on the same level with everything else to me. As an aside, that is also why I am not careful with pronouns. I considered writing pronouns exactly like you (before I met you), but considered it like highlighting the most important parts of a book: if I did, it would be highlighting everything. So I just leave everything casual even though I view everything as the Creator. So I am honoring the Creator as my equal / myself in my own way.
RE: Your examples -
I break down the Ra Material in a very different way. I love and am quite adept at recognizing very large patterns and articulating them into my own understandings / beliefs. To borrow a trope, I tend to see the forest in the trees. As I read the material, I notice most of, (if not all of) the subtleties you are giving in example. This is a bit difficult to explain as I have an easier time visualizing this concept than expressing it in written words. I tend to categorize certain bits of information and add certain things to a larger category rather than make an explicit mental note about something. In your example, I noticed long ago that Ra toggles back and forth between using the first person singular "I" and the first person plural "we". Rather than dissecting "We found that" under a microscope by itself, I quickly add that bit of information to the 'pile' of other similar instances they seem to have trouble distinguishing between 'I' and 'we'. Since I am adding it to an existing theory in larger pattern of theories, I am able to quickly move past / digest large sections of the material at once.
Don't get me wrong, I still slow down and put certain things under the microscope when I find a brand new puzzle piece that doesn't belong in any of the existing 'piles' of similar pieces or refines an existing pile.
To phrase this a different way, I sort of put certain filters on when reading the material. Sometimes I look for specifics. But when I am doing a full reading of the material in chronological order, I like to filter out relatively 'known quantities'. When I filter out the concepts that I already know such as what Ra means by "vibratory sound complexes", it makes it much easier for me to drill down and find some real gems of understanding (such as new concepts or putting a finer point on existing concepts). I realize that is not how everyone is wired, but it helps me and I know I am not the only person that thinks in a similar fashion. Hence why I decided to start this project equally for myself and for others who think similarly.
I have refined my methodology when creating a strike-through version of a session. I tend to mostly strike through "if you will", "so called", "what you would call", etc. I also am a bit more careful when straying from that. For instance, I would not have strike-through'ed a couple of lines in my first example in the OP. I will most likely do another pass-through of the whole material once I am done with my initial pass and 'correct' anything I feel I was not as careful as I should have been with.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Parsons - 04-24-2016
I would also like to add that I think there is information to be understood only by seeing very large patterns in the material. Following my forest in the trees analogy, it would be like seeing the forest from a very high altitude and realizing it is deliberately arranged in such a way to look like a gigantic smiley face. You will never notice the smiley face if you only go around with a magnifying glass looking at each individual tree. Of course, if you never bust out the magnifying glass, you may never find some interesting new species of fungus growing on a tree. Thus, I find value in both methodologies, but am especially am wired to try to find the larger patterns.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Bring4th_Austin - 04-24-2016
This isn't the first attempt to do something similar to this, and believe it or not, it resulted in similarly polarized opinions on the appropriateness of doing so.
I personally fall into the camp feeling that Ra spoke in a very particular way for a reason, and even if some of their idiosyncrasies create a barrier to understanding, they should never be dismissed completely. In that sense, I appreciate your strikethrough method, as it shows exactly what it is that you, the editor, found proper to eliminate, but makes it easy for the reader to see exactly what was omitted. And honestly, I don't think that this barrier created by the mess of complex language should be a barrier for entry into the material. There are many people who resonate strongly with Ra's words, but find it incredibly difficult to read them.
I think the important thing about doing something like this is to keep a clear understanding, on the part of the person doing to work as well as the person reading it, that to make such alterations is to introduce personal, subjective, human distortions to the text. Like Aion pointed out, each person may choose different portions to strike out. In doing something like this, you are, in a sense, sharing your opinion.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Many people all over the internet are sharing their opinions about the Ra material, going over various personal interpretations and comparing it with others. The biggest danger I see in doing something like this is to present it in a way that claims to be objective. And I think it would be good to take extra steps in ensuring this is created and read with this in mind, such as adding disclaimers to each strikethrough session claiming the alterations are a result of personal understanding and are not intended to be objective.
So long as this understanding is ensured, I feel this is appropriate and may even be useful for some people in the same way that simply discussing Ra's words can be useful.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Parsons - 04-25-2016
I started adding a disclaimer to my strike-through sessions, although I fear the disclaimer itself will generate semantic arguments. I want to give a brief reason why I am doing this in the disclaimer itself, but I find it difficult elegantly articulate.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - JustLikeYou - 05-01-2016
I think it's a great idea.
Anything else I might have said has already been covered.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - ricdaw - 05-02-2016
You know, Shakespeare is kinda hard to read too. But iambic pentameter is part of its design, so it can be viewed as tampering to make the prose more understandable.
And yet, I really appreciated the enhanced version of Shakespeare in college with all that commentary. Who knew that so many words actually meant something completely different in 1600 than they mean today? How would I know that without the assist in the margins?
At the same time, I really do enjoy the accessibility and joy that comes from school-age productions where they abridge and simplify Shakespeare's language.
It's all good. So long as no one burns the original text, edit away!
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Parsons - 05-03-2016
Before I go back and edit every single post I made and add a disclaimer, could I please get a little feedback? I want to make sure it's descriptive and accurate before I go to all that work. What you do you guys thing of:
Quote:Disclaimer: The lines I strike-through are what I subjectively feel are superfluous. I either find them to be obvious, commonly known concepts expressed by Ra, or are simply idiosyncrasies used by Ra. This version is not intended for those new to the material. This is my opinion and not the opinion of L/L Research.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Fastidious Emanations - 01-02-2017
the precision is the key to the contact, friend
peacefulness
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Infinite Unity - 01-02-2017
I could see how some could like your crossed out sections. I do see how they tick with Ra's own leaning towards understanding per subject. I personally liked those little bits of subtle information. However I liked Ra's language. It really resonated wit !e and how I liked to take on such spiritual topics. I think the language definitely ticks wit a certain intelligence that is beyond subjective logic.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Agua del Cielo - 01-03-2017
Dear parsons,
I would like to share my thoughts on this:
Basically, thank you for your attempt to provide an easier-to-read version for those that may find it helpful.
as long as its clearly indicated that its an "interpreted" version i see no problem withit it.
However i would like to add some points.
When you say "forthe advanced reader" i would rather call it "a beginners version".
What i mean by that is, the Ra materials contains many many layers of information. Depending on your stage of experience and spiritual evolution (in the current human form) you would simply ignore pieces of information, bcause the seem superfluous to you.
However two or three years later you may find this information quite relevant and important!
Had you only the edited version available, this information would be lost.
For me the most important part of the information provided in the material is its very vibration ratherthan simply the words.
This vibration triggered or activated this "state" in me. It made me remember so to speak.
And a very simple , often repeated, example would be stuff like "the one known as bla-bla".
This made me very aware, that we have a extremely reduced perception of other human beings.
We call someone "jim" for example, and by that we limit him to his human form, maybe outer appereance and the things we believe to know about him.
We dont see the eternal being in "jim", we dont see the light, we re blind to his very mission and purpose on earth.
By constantly refering to "the one you call Jim", this acts ,for me at least, as a means of deconditioning and as a reminder that this very perspective is in fact deep inside also my own.
Wouldnt it be for those "things" you find pointless, i wouldnt have awoken to the point i am right now.
This said, it might still be valuable for many to have an easier to read version.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Agua del Cielo - 01-03-2017
I would also liketo add, that Ra himself said something like:
"The Confederation of Planets in the Service of the Infinite Creator has only one important statement. That statement, my friends, as you know, is “All things, all of life, all of the creation is part of one original thought.”
In fact this is already the complete message they offer. All the rest of the five books are in a way superflous, as the message has already been given.
However it is being repeated in countless ways and details, because every soul might have a differEnt way of accessing and understanding.
So, taken to the extreme, you would have to strike out all five books exceptthat quote
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Kaaron - 01-06-2017
I feel like the long winded answers serve as a training mechanism whereby reading it teaches us to hold multiple lines of thought simultaneously.
I feel that if a sixth density entity finds it important enough to mention (given their awareness of Carlas sacrifice and that each word was like gold), we should honour that choice and leave the material as is.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Parsons - 01-08-2017
Thanks for the feedback everyone. The overwhelming response seems to be that most aren't actually checking what I am strike-throughing and assuming I am crossing out important concepts. 95%+ of what I am crossing out is the phrases like "shall we say" or "may we say". It's the equivalent of editing out all the "umhs" and "errs" out of an audio transcript.
I am NOT strike-throughing anything complex. You would have to actually read a few sessions of my strike-through version or skim it for the phrases I am strike-throughing to verify nothing remotely important is being crossed out. The longest sentence fragment I have ever crossed out would be like 5 - 8 words, with the vast majority of things I am crossing out being sentence fragments of 3 words or less. So I maintain that this version is for advanced seekers, probably not so much for beginners. The advanced seeker that has read this material many times understands that Ra loves to use the phrase "shall we say" and it's not important to the intellectual concepts being conveyed.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Parsons - 01-08-2017
I can't help but be reminded of something from Babylon 5. One character writes a book of wisdom that unintentionally becomes a holy book, equivelant to the Bible. The character (G'Kar) is very intelligent, but very practical and down to earth. A bunch of his race start reproducing his book as a holy book. He notices that on one of the pages of the copies made, there is a brown circle across mark. G'kar tries to explain to them in horror that it is just a coffee stain and is completely unimportant (superflous) to the message of the book.
I am suggesting almost all the "shall we says" in the material are the equivelant of the coffee stain in the book. I am not going so far as to say that they should be edited out, but just add a line to cross them out so they don't muddy up difficult to understand concepts. That is the purpose of this project.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Kaaron - 01-08-2017
"shall we say" can imply alot. "As you call it" also implies alot.
To alter it in any way is implying that our limited perspective sees the imperfections in a near perfect perspective.
I'm not saying the Ra material is undistorted, I'm saying that there might be a reason Ra put those little seemingly unimportant phrases in, even if it is just to teach us to hold a train of thought for a long time. Considering our ability to hold a train of thought is the foundation for meditation and connection with the all, it makes sense to me that Ra would work with certain techniques when delivering the message to subconsciously train us in this area.
Ra also says that the material isn't for everyone. Maybe those who get caught up on the wording and technicalities weren't the intended recipients...or maybe it's written in a manner that will only be useful to wanderers and those who don't find it annoying.
One of the only things Ra shared voluntarily was this: "Let us for a moment consider thought. What is it, my friends, to take thought? Took you then thought today? What thoughts did you think today? What thoughts were part of the original thought today? In how many of your thoughts did the creation abide? Was love contained? And was service freely given? You are not part of a material universe. You are part of a thought. You are dancing in a ballroom in which there is no material. You are dancing thoughts. You move your body, your mind, and your spirit in somewhat eccentric patterns for you have not completely grasped the concept that you are part of the original thought."
To me, this is pointing out our biggest hurdle in contacting the all...it feels like the crux of everything in the Law of One and that's why Ra chose it as that paragraph that would be given without request.
I also feel that the wording gives an insight into Ra's personality...especially when Don asks if Ra is able to explain something and they answer with an almost dumbed down "yes". Then Don has to say "can you explain it for us please". I feel that it springs from the intention to be as precise as possible but also to give a sense of "humanity" or to remind us even nearly perfect beings have a sense of humour. If there is another term for something we call "shoe", Ra alludes to it by saying "as you call it". That is helping to keep in the back of your mind that there are multiple words for the same thing because there are multiple civilizations scattered throughout the universe. It helps to keep things in perspective.
If you want to strikethrough phrasing and words that help you read the material, that's your choice.
I just don't think it's something I'd want to be putting out there for others...considering how much spiritual gravity and karma can go along with those types of choices.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Minyatur - 01-08-2017
(01-08-2017, 03:39 PM)Parsons Wrote: I am suggesting almost all the "shall we says" in the material are the equivelant of the coffee stain in the book. I am not going so far as to say that they should be edited out, but just add a line to cross them out so they don't muddy up difficult to understand concepts. That is the purpose of this project.
I think they're usually meant to hint that more is being conveyed than the used words.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Parsons - 01-08-2017
@Kaaron Yes, I was specifically aware of the implications behind the "as you call it" phrasing before I began this project. That is actually a large portion of the reason I chose to say this was for more advanced users, since if that is a lesson that Ra was specifically trying to convey, they repeat it over and over again (ad nauseam) throughout the material. If someone is familiar with the material, it's very hard to miss since it's repeated so many times. So that was one of Ra's idiosyncrasies I chose to cross out since that particular message has already been beaten into one's skull.
Re: the karma warning... I am not worried about that because the reader can simply choose not to read this version, which is another part of the reason I said it was for advanced users (to discourage newcomers from reading it first and thus potentially miss details like the "as you call it" thing). Also, the text I am strike-throughing is still legible in the exact same position it is in the normal material (you don't have to look it up in some appendix or revision log or something).
Virtually every concern expressed I have received so far was anticipated before I began this project and factored into my decision to go forward with it. That includes the risk that the wrong type of person will read it and miss an important concept. I have done everything I can think of to mitigate that risk by being very careful what type of message is struck-through, discouraging first-time readers from reading it, and discouraging people who don't like the idea of this project from reading it. I was and still am very concerned about altering the material in a way that will impact the message of the material, which I consider paramount. I factored everything in and thought the potential rewards outweighed the potential risks.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Kaaron - 01-08-2017
Do what thou wilt...
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Kaaron - 01-08-2017
If you already feel so strongly about your perspective, why put it out as a poll?
It seems like you're asking for validation on something you've already decided on and are trying to convince others or get them to agree with you.
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Parsons - 01-08-2017
I wanted to more accurately quantify interest in the subject with an anonymous poll (rather than force people to comment).
RE: The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language - Agua del Cielo - 01-10-2017
Dear parsons,
I highly respect your effort and motivation.
I guess, no harm will be done but it might be useful for some.
Still, i would suggest contemplating this:
Very much do we "think" we "already know this" because its being repeated over and over.however most of what we "know" (of the Ra material), in fact is just one more peace of informatio that we posess and is completely contradictory to the way we live.
I feel constantly reminded of the fact, that the words fail to contain and reveal the deeper truth.
It all serves as a reminder of the truth in me, more like a pointer to something. And i never know which (maybe odd) phrase will next point me to a deeper experience of truth.
I never know, which concept of mine will crumble next. I never know which misconception i am ready to let go next.
When i read "a course in miracles" i was at first bothered by the odd phrasing, by the constant use of the word "sin" ( which i didnt think to believe in). After a while i realized it would serve as a reminder and a de-conditioner, making me aware constantly of deeper,more unconscious conditionings.