+- 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: Why do you believe? (/showthread.php?tid=433)
Why do you believe? - Lavazza - 08-12-2009
I've been thinking about this question for a while and was reminded of it today as I spoke to a friend who happens to have a more practical view of the world we live in (that it is just as it appears). His basic outlook on spirituality and religion is that as intelligent thinking biological organisms, we are not comforted by the fact that we will eventually die, and that as a general rule, we do not have any reason to believe that our consciousness will survive it. Thus we create religions and belief systems to comfort ourselves.
The interesting thing about our third density reality is that there is no knowing.
So in essence we all choose to believe in the existence of our souls because on some level we choose to believe in it. We will never have hard proof. An atheist also does not have proof of what she believes, but she also does not have as much burden of proof. (Not that I am saying proof needs to be shown to anyone- just that if two people were going to engage in a debate about the nature of reality, the atheist would have a slight advantage). The one known as Dawkins will never face the day he is shown to be in error- in this lifetime.
So what is it that makes US believe? This is what I am interested in hearing about... it's a wide topic so we will have to make some effort to remain true to it in this thread. I will volunteer to be first.
---
I just don't believe that certain people and groups are fabricating, consciously or unconsciously, their testimonies and/or channelings. People like Michael Newton (past life regressionist) and the L/L Group (that we are all familiar with), or my mother in law's experience getting in touch with her now dis-incarnate relatives. This is something I have chosen to believe in- yet my spiritual opposite could come up with explanations that I could not conclusively say are implausible.
I have also always been fascinated with nature here on earth, and the cosmos in general. Something so infinitely large, and infinitely small, and infinitely beautiful... The idea of it springing in to existence independently of a creator seems arrogant at the least, and nonsensical in the extreme. Yet again this viewpoint is my choice. We're all familiar with the scientific explanations- that life on earth is by chance and the fact that we view it as beautiful may have evolved along with our species.
I would also add that if my consciousness could not survive the death of my physical body, I would see much less point to existing in the first place. But again, as my friend today so eloquently suggested, living life to it's fullest and being of service to others is as much a reward in itself. No greater purpose or scheme is needed for these things. (incidentally this is one of the best philosophies that has evolved out of the religion/atheist debates, IMO).
Last thing, and maybe the only thing I could rely on heavily in a spiritual discussion, is a simple resonance with the materials / philosophy. Everyone here likely knows what I mean by this but it's hard to explain to anyone else. But to counter myself again, another friend of mine would say that everyone has a resonance with what they believe in, and may even be a slippery slope, to extremism in some cases. Surely Islam extremists who always land in the news feel a strong resonance with their teachings, as did those who committed suicide in the 'Heaven's Gate' cult. So where do you draw the line between rationality and blind faith?
---
To tie this back in to the Law of One- why do you believe the Law of One, as apposed to any other spiritual philosophy? I believe the LOO is correct in so far as we understand it in this reality... my point in creating this thread is to really examine why I believe this. For me it's a tough question, but I'm equally unwilling to shy away from it.
RE: Why do you believe? - Lorna - 08-12-2009
for me the LOO simply neatly tied together all the disparate things i had read or learned that made sense to me since i was a young kid
i had a similar conversation with my dad not so long ago - about 'why'. his mum died not long ago and on the very long journey back from the funeral he was asking why i believed in life after death. i said that i didn't believe, i just knew.
when i read the LOO it was like remembering rather than learning anew - it was just 'right' and the only what to explain it is that i already knew it all - reading Ra's words simply unlocked what was already there
a week or two after that my parents met their neighbours for the first time (although they'd lived next to each other for over a year). within five minutes the conversation moved onto reincarnation, destiny, angels etc, and my dad's neighbour said exactly the same thing to him. it's not a case of believing, it's simply 'knowing'. he's now reading the michael newton book 'journey of souls' that his neighbour recommneded. i'm sure he'll discuss it when he's ready.
when i stumbled upon the LOO i was definitely searching - after i found it i stopped. i can only assume that it was becasue i already knew i needed that information
in terms of your question about rationality and blind faith - i think that often blind faith can become addictive, like a drug, you need more and more, you need constantly to move to the next level to get your religious kick, almost like an external validation that you're on the right path - certainly that is how it has seemed to me watching friends who have become involved in evangelical christianity. i think there is a contentment and a calmness when you find a belief system, whatever it is, that fits you.
RE: Why do you believe? - Whitefeather - 08-13-2009
What makes us believe?
Interesting question.
I would say that the mind cannot keep a vacuum; it feels uncomfortable when not knowing; it needs data, it needs to be filled and therefore it is constantly creating.
So, what it doesn't know, the mind invents and believes.
After all, is there a Truth?
When the gaps or the porosity, so to say, of the not-knowing are getting filled little by little by consciousness and that, the mind expands in experience and understanding, then knowing replaces believes.
And so says wisely Lorna
Quote:...i said that i didn't believe, i just knew...
...i already knew i needed that information...
Technically, beliefs are proportional to the lack of knowledge.
Beliefs show us what we do not know. What we believe, we do not know.
And since each person has a different timing for knowledge and for consciousness, there is no error in beliefs, only an endless experience of creativity with different perspectives for everyone at different moments in their life.
Keeping the light on in the dark,
With much Love and Light
W. (13 August 2009)
RE: Why do you believe? - ayadew - 08-13-2009
We believe for there is no other way to live in 3D.
Imagine infinity, the state where all polarities are unified. It is a 1 state, of all things simultaneously.
'Believing' means in practice 'to ignore' a part of this unification, ignore that the polarity of the believed thing exists.
Unless we close of a part of infinity, we cannot, with 3D understanding, actually do something that can be classified as "meaningful" in this existence.
We cannot explore, learn, experience and be amazed by new possibilities.
That we can 'believe' has always been proof to me of that infinity exists
RE: Why do you believe? - 3D Sunset - 08-13-2009
Lavazza Wrote:To tie this back in to the Law of One- why do you believe the Law of One, as apposed to any other spiritual philosophy? I believe the LOO is correct in so far as we understand it in this reality... my point in creating this thread is to really examine why I believe this. For me it's a tough question, but I'm equally unwilling to shy away from it.
Hi Lavazza,
The Law of One resonated with me because it was actually the most succinct compilation of the spiritual nuggets that I had gathered over 40 years of searching and study. In addition to being a pretty good users guide for this 3D vehicle, it also provided a framework or context that was consistent with my experiences. Add to that the fact that it provided an insight into one of the greatest nagging mysteries - that of how "evil" fits into the big picture - and it all just made sense. I remember that when I first started reading the Law of One, I was transfixed by the words Ra used to express himself. It's funny, but I found that I started thinking in that language and expressing myself internally using terms like "distortion" and dichotomies like teach/learn and learn/teach, time/space and space/time, etc. when analyzing a situation. I frequently use this "Spock voice" as I call it, to dispassionately evaluate what might otherwise be an "emotional" situation.
For me, I accept concepts to the extent they are useful to me to effect change in myself and my environment. This gets to the know/believe dichotomy that others have referred to. Belief is useless for effecting change, because belief is always founded on doubt, and doubt is the great dis-empowerer of the mind. I have found many, many concepts in the Law of One that are useful to me to effect change. I see many others that I am working to learn how to use, but have not figured out. It's kind of like walking into a fantastic workshop with amazing tools lining every wall. Included with each tool is a description of what it is used for, and the simple statement to "seek inside yourself for the user's manual". Even though I have not yet figured out most of these amazing tools, I "know" what they are for, and that I can unlock their secrets by allocating sufficient time, energy and intent to that purpose through inward contemplation and balancing.
Sorry if I've rambled a little, but there it is. Thanks for starting another interesting thread!
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
RE: Why do you believe? - airwaves - 08-13-2009
(08-12-2009, 07:30 PM)Lorna Wrote: when i read the LOO it was like remembering rather than learning anew - it was just 'right' and the only what to explain it is that i already knew it all - reading Ra's words simply unlocked what was already there
----------------
when i stumbled upon the LOO i was definitely searching - after i found it i stopped. i can only assume that it was becasue i already knew i needed that information
This. This is exactly how it happened for me verbatim.
There is something else to; everytime I read Q’uo's words, I cant quite describe it ...............somtething within me really stirs. I feel a kinship for them. I Feel that I am a part of them.
See my signature? Every time I read it; I cry, not tears of sadness, tears of longing. No joke
It really is knowing for me, not believing.
RE: Why do you believe? - Whitefeather - 08-13-2009
I agree that we know when we know, however the question remains: ''What makes us believe?'' or ''Why do we believe?'', ''Why 3D people believe?''
And to this, I would like to rephrase and simply say that we believe when we do not know and that beliefs are created by the need to fill gaps for not-knowing. Our beliefs are created by ourselves. So, as a result they are not universal truth and they do not deserve to be hold as truth as religions do hold them.
Presenting a belief to the world under the pretence of truth is therefore an act of manipulation. Why? Because it takes away from each co-creators, the freedom of creating their own beliefs.
We came here to create and, no one should attempt to hinder any other soul doing just that, create.
If you watch closer in matter of religion, the endless polemics only mean that not one person believes exactly the same.
It is useless to fight in matter of beliefs since every point of view is perfect for the holder of that particular point of view.
Every single one of us is experiencing the One Creator from a different perspective. That is the wonder of creation in the endless diversity offered by each and all souls.
Keeping the light on in the dark,
Much Love and Light and as many beliefs as you wish,
W. 13th Aug. 2009
Ps:The above is only a belief.
Do not take it too seriously. 
RE: Why do you believe? - Lavazza - 08-13-2009
Hey everyone, thanks for all these wonderful insights! Lots of concepts here I haven't considered before.
I'll do a chop and hack job of quotes to keep the thread reasonably sized:
Lorna Wrote:i said that i didn't believe, i just knew....
he's now reading the michael newton book 'journey of souls'....
you need constantly to move to the next level to get your religious kick, almost like an external validation that you're on the right path....
Knowing vs. Believing, Believing vs. Knowing. I hadn't really considered these two words to mean separate things before. Would you say perhaps that they are opposites, or are they more parallel, both residing one next to the other on the path to enlightenment?
Journey of Souls is a great book, I just finished reading it a few months ago!
External validation, I think that's certainly something a lot of people look for when they are making decisions about what to believe. But I agree that this must be a fruitless pattern for one who wishes to achieve knowingness. Yet upon reflection, I cannot say with all honesty that I am above the desire for external validation. It may be my personality, or my current level of spiritual evolution, or maybe it's in some way been programmed in to me by the society that raised me. This is all very interesting. How does one move from the desire for external validation to internal validation? Is there a point where no validation is required, or should that be the ultimate goal?
Whitefeather Wrote:When the gaps or the porosity, so to say, of the not-knowing are getting filled little by little by consciousness and that, the mind expands in experience and understanding, then knowing replaces believes.
I think this has become a goal of mine while reading these responses- to replace my beliefs with a sort of knowing. Would you say it's fair to call belief a vehicle to get to knowing?
ayadew Wrote:Imagine infinity, the state where all polarities are unified. It is a 1 state, of all things simultaneously. 'Believing' means in practice 'to ignore' a part of this unification, ignore that the polarity of the believed thing exists. Unless we close of a part of infinity, we cannot, with 3D understanding, actually do something that can be classified as "meaningful" in this existence. We cannot explore, learn, experience and be amazed by new possibilities.
I very much appreciate this perspective, but I am just a little bit lost. Allow me to paraphrase and correct me where I have interpreted wrongly... You are basically saying that being cut off from the source or "all that is" within our 3rd density we are afforded the opportunity to believe if we so choose (law of free will)? And to therefore do meaningful spiritual work?
ayadew Wrote:That we can 'believe' has always been proof to me of that infinity exists
I understand your basic statement here, but could you expand upon it for me a little more, if possible?
3D Sunset Wrote:The Law of One resonated with me because it was actually the most succinct compilation of the spiritual nuggets that I had gathered over 40 years of searching and study.
... Add to that the fact that it provided an insight into one of the greatest nagging mysteries - that of how "evil" fits into the big picture - and it all just made sense.
...Even though I have not yet figured out most of these amazing tools, I "know" what they are for, and that I can unlock their secrets by allocating sufficient time, energy and intent to that purpose through inward contemplation and balancing.
I sincerely envy your spiritual path. I feel a bit like a teenager who has been handed the keys to a Ferarri, having never owned a car before. Much rather I would have first owned a '78 ford thunderbird on it's last legs... covered in rust... falling apart... and slowly advance up to the Ferarri over the years as you have. It's a bit of an interesting situation I find myself in. I ran across TLOO pretty fast after waking up, and now I am doing the reverse of your path, seeking out every bit of non-LLResearch material and seeing how it fits in nicely with what I've already discovered. As such, it seems I am somewhat robbed of the 'Ah Ha!' moment where I suddenly find the missing link. Maybe this is why I am so interested in how others believe. My own personal catalyst it seems.
I was also highly mystified by the existence of evil. And again in all honesty, I still don't really understand why it has to exist. I will try and start a new thread for this tomorrow.
Regarding your tool analogy, do you mean to say that there are components of the LOO text that you either choose not to believe, or that you have not put enough mental energy in to to incorporate in with your existing belief/knowing complex? Certainly there are parts of TLOO that I have not been able to fully process/accept, especially in the 'fragments' section. I suppose this could be likened to yet another spice that has been thrown in to the cauldron of my catalyst-belief-knowing stew.
I'm really enjoying the discourse here everyone, please keep the teach/learning going!
RE: Why do you believe? - 3D Sunset - 08-14-2009
(08-13-2009, 10:04 PM)Lavazza Wrote: I was also highly mystified by the existence of evil. And again in all honesty, I still don't really understand why it has to exist. I will try and start a new thread for this tomorrow.
This is a very interesting question, and one that a significant portion of Book IV of the Law of One is devoted to, although it may not seem so on your first reading. Let me share with you a few relevant quotes:
Ra, Book IV, Session 77 Wrote:Questioner: Would it be possible for this work of our density to be performed if all of the sub-Logoi chose the same polarity in any particular expression or evolution of a Logos? Let us make the assumption that our sun created nothing but, through the first distortion, positive polarity.
There was no product except positive polarity. Would work then be done in fourth density and higher as a function of only the positive polarization evolving from the original creation of our sub-Logos?
Ra: I am Ra. Elements of this query illustrate the reason I was unable to answer your previous question without knowledge of the Logos involved. To turn to your question, there were Logoi which chose to set the plan for the activation of mind/body/spirit complexes through each true color body without recourse to the prior application of free will. It is, to our knowledge, only in an absence of free will that the conditions of which you speak obtain. In such a procession of densities you find an extraordinarily long, as you measure time, third-density; likewise, fourth density. Then, as the entities begin to see the Creator, there is a very rapid, as you measure time, procession towards the eighth density. This is due to the fact that one who knows not, cares not.
Let us illustrate by observing the relative harmony and unchanging quality of existence in one of your, as you call it, primitive tribes. The entities have the concepts of lawful and taboo, but the law is inexorable and all events occur as predestined. There is no concept of right and wrong, good or bad.
It is a culture in monochrome. In this context you may see the one you call Lucifer as the true light-bringer in that the knowledge of good and evil both precipitated the mind/body/spirits of this Logos from the Edenic conditions of constant contentment and also provided the impetus to move, to work and to learn.
Those Logoi whose creations have been set up without free will have not, in the feeling of those Logoi, given the Creator the quality and variety of experience of Itself as have those Logoi which have incorporated free will as paramount. Thusly you find those Logoi moving through the timeless states at what you would see as a later space/time to choose the free will character when elucidating the foundations of each Logos.
Questioner: I guess, under the first distortion, it was the free will of the Logos to choose to evolve without free will. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.
From the simplest level, what Ra is saying is that there is a direct relationship between the Logos' choice to allow free will within its creations (e.g., 3D entities), and the availability of "evil" (or less judgmentally, "negativite polarity"). This makes perfect sense in that where there is no good/evil dichotomy, there is no "choice" just as where there is no free will there is no "choice". The other necessary aspect for the granting of free will though, is the removing of conscious knowledge of ones inherent godliness. This we refer to as the veil (note also, that the words veil and evil are anagrams... do you think this is a coincidence?).
But the existence of evil goes even deeper than veiling and free will. It touches on the original reason for our existence. Recall that we are here to help the One Creator experience himself. Before the existence of "the choice", all 3D experiences were of a much more harmonic and peaceful (monochrome) nature. Although this made for easier lives for the 3D entities, it produced much less variety of experiences than could occur in a dichotomic world, and it also complicated the process of polarization and advancement due to this comfortable existence. In addition though, consider how much more colorful life is with the veil:
Ra, Book IV, Session 95 Wrote:Questioner: Thank you. In the last session you indicated in the statement about the immature male meeting the immature female that the information exchanged was quite different with respect to what occurred because of the veil. Would you give an example of the information exchange prior to the veil for the same case?
Ra: I am Ra. Given this same case; that is, the random red-ray sexual arousal being activated in both male and female, the communication would far more likely have been to the subject of the satisfying of that red-ray, sexual impulse. When this had occurred other information such as the naming could be offered with clear perception. It is to be noted that the catalyst which may be processed by the pre-veil experience is insignificant compared to the catalyst offered to the thoroughly bemused male and female after the veil. The confusion which this situation, simplistic though it is, offers is representative of the efficiency of the enlargement of the catalytic processes occurring after the veiling.
This quote really brings home the importance then of free will -> veil -> evil -> choice in terms of creating much more varied and interesting experiences which we will eventually distill and bring back to the Infinite creator for his bemusement and enjoyment.
Make sense?
Lavazza Wrote:Regarding your tool analogy, do you mean to say that there are components of the LOO text that you either choose not to believe, or that you have not put enough mental energy in to to incorporate in with your existing belief/knowing complex? Certainly there are parts of TLOO that I have not been able to fully process/accept, especially in the 'fragments' section. I suppose this could be likened to yet another spice that has been thrown in to the cauldron of my catalyst-belief-knowing stew.
Mostly the latter. So much to do... so little time.
That said though, there are some parts of the Law of One that do not resonate with me. These mostly have to do with transitory material that Don delved into at different times, but there are also some interactions between Don and Ra, that just feel to me like Don has such a conviction about the answer that Ra gives him a simple affirmative answer but does not elaborate as he normally would. I suspect that in some of these cases, Ra does so to terminate the line of questions without infringing on Don's free will or personal belief systems as he might if he gave a negative reply. Note that I do not feel that this is a shortcoming of Don in any way, as I'm sure that the same thing would happen with all of us (myself especially).
Thanks again for the good thread and the good questions!
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
RE: Why do you believe? - ayadew - 08-14-2009
Hello Lavazza. Thank you for your reply
Well, in essense I mean that we all choose to ignore a part of "all that is" until we are One again, whatever density.
This is with a 3D understanding though and obviously, I'm not so sure if higher density entities would agree with this perspective/idea as they see the bigger picture
My last statement is universially applicable in the sense that if there even exists opposite things, such as beliefs, it is a proof that infinity exists for in the idea of two opposites exists an infinite 'grey' area of different mixtures of the opposites.
To take a number analogy, where "yes" is 1 and "no" is 0, the "grey" would be 0.1~ to 0.9~.
Not sure if I make any sense lol
RE: Why do you believe? - Lavazza - 08-17-2009
ayadew Wrote:Not sure if I make any sense lol
Thanks for this clarification ayadew. It does makes sense. It is similar to the paradox that the Greek philosopher Zeno presented during his time... that in theory you should never be able to reach a destination, because to go there you would first need to reach the midway point. And the midway point to the midway point... etc, to infinity. Thus as you can never reach the first midway point, you can never move (yet we reach our destinations regardless, thus the paradox)
3D Sunset Wrote:Thanks again for the good thread and the good questions!
And thank you for your responses! You've laid out some excellent discussion points on the topic of "evil" that I'm looking forward to discussing. But I'll save it for a new thread, hopefully I can get around to creating it this week some time.
3D Sunset Wrote:That said though, there are some parts of the Law of One that do not resonate with me. These mostly have to do with transitory material that Don delved into at different times, but there are also some interactions between Don and Ra, that just feel to me like Don has such a conviction about the answer that Ra gives him a simple affirmative answer but does not elaborate as he normally would. I suspect that in some of these cases, Ra does so to terminate the line of questions without infringing on Don's free will or personal belief systems as he might if he gave a negative reply. Note that I do not feel that this is a shortcoming of Don in any way, as I'm sure that the same thing would happen with all of us (myself especially).
Do you mean that Ra basically indulged Don with an answer that he wanted to hear, so as not to divert the theme of questions further away from core Law of One principals? So that Ra might be thinking to him/itself "yes yes alright whatever you want to hear is true, just lets get back to the basic spirituality material please!" One of the earlier sessions Don actually asks Ra if they intentionally weave mis-information in to their responses to uphold laws of confusion, but they respond in the affirmative that they "do not intentionally do this".
This brings up more confusion on my end that is relevant to this thread. That being, how do you access the Law of One material overall? Obviously there are ground breaking principals and bits of "lost" information that are extremely interesting. But there are also those areas that do not resonate, and/or are (I am willing to venture) completely false. Such as, again, some of the responses in the 'fragments' section. Lets take an extreme example of mis-information, the existence of moon bases. In Carla's commentary this is explained as 'de-tuning' of the instrument with transitory questioning. The idea being in short that Ra has to resign the answering to other (negative?) entities who are happy to dictate any sort of fantastical response. Is the Law of One such a body of work that one "wrong" (so to speak) response to a question could invalidate the rest? And if not, why?
Another point here, is how can we be certain that this is an isolated example? I'm almost finished with book one of the series now, and from what I can see Don asks many, many "transitory" questions of Ra to which answers are given.
One response to this line of questioning I've read before is the simple use of resonance towards the material. And indeed this is probably the best road map for any channeled or other spiritual information. But then are we not more or less in a position to simply say ye or nay to anything we wanted? Is the Law of One intended to be that subjective? If so- I'm happy to cross out the existence of the STS path. It doesn't resonate to me... yet to do that seems to me to be a great disservice to the information on the whole. So how can we ignore / cut anything out?
Would that I could glaze over these questions and not be bothered by them, alas... these are some of the things I think about at night. Perhaps in part responsible for my belief / lack of knowing.
RE: Why do you believe? - 3D Sunset - 08-17-2009
(08-17-2009, 12:19 PM)Lavazza Wrote: Do you mean that Ra basically indulged Don with an answer that he wanted to hear, so as not to divert the theme of questions further away from core Law of One principals? So that Ra might be thinking to him/itself "yes yes alright whatever you want to hear is true, just lets get back to the basic spirituality material please!" One of the earlier sessions Don actually asks Ra if they intentionally weave mis-information in to their responses to uphold laws of confusion, but they respond in the affirmative that they "do not intentionally do this".
Hi Lavazza,
Well, I wouldn't have put it in those exact words, but yes... I do think that essentially what you say happened on several occasions especially during Book I. As you further your studies in the subsequent books, I think you'll see a much more harmonious relationship between Don's questions and Ra's answers. I do not think that Ra intentionally included mis-information though. Rather, he simply answered in a way that would not infringe Don's free will. I think that this is a very important aspect of the material, and you really must bear in mind that the Law of One books were generated within the context of a conversation between Ra and Don. As such, there may be many nuances to the discussion, questions, and answers that are not recorded in the black and white of the book. I think that this is most an issue during the discussion of transitory material, so I tend to discount all of it.
(08-17-2009, 12:19 PM)Lavazza Wrote: This brings up more confusion on my end that is relevant to this thread. That being, how do you access the Law of One material overall? Obviously there are ground breaking principals and bits of "lost" information that are extremely interesting. But there are also those areas that do not resonate, and/or are (I am willing to venture) completely false. Such as, again, some of the responses in the 'fragments' section. Lets take an extreme example of mis-information, the existence of moon bases. In Carla's commentary this is explained as 'de-tuning' of the instrument with transitory questioning. The idea being in short that Ra has to resign the answering to other (negative?) entities who are happy to dictate any sort of fantastical response. Is the Law of One such a body of work that one "wrong" (so to speak) response to a question could invalidate the rest? And if not, why?
I do not think that Ra ever resigned control of the instrument during any of the sessions. As you'll see in Book III, the nature of the contact with Carla was just to intimate for that. I do agree with the idea of de-tuning, though. When transitory questions were asked, it caused the radio that was Carla to drift off signal some. At that point, it could have picked up any noise that was flowing around.
(08-17-2009, 12:19 PM)Lavazza Wrote: One response to this line of questioning I've read before is the simple use of resonance towards the material. And indeed this is probably the best road map for any channeled or other spiritual information. But then are we not more or less in a position to simply say ye or nay to anything we wanted? Is the Law of One intended to be that subjective? If so- I'm happy to cross out the existence of the STS path. It doesn't resonate to me... yet to do that seems to me to be a great disservice to the information on the whole. So how can we ignore / cut anything out?
I agree that personal resonance is key, and this may surprise you, but I say that if STS doesn't resonate with you, then GREAT! Set it aside. You really can live just fine in this 3D world without it. And who knows, you may be right! Then again, you may find that as time passes, the idea begins to resonate with you. There is nothing that says you won't resonate to different things over time. Don't try to get the cart before the horse, take it one step at a time. Remember that you are acting in service to others, not in service to the Law of One Books that were created by 3D creatures.
(08-17-2009, 12:19 PM)Lavazza Wrote: Would that I could glaze over these questions and not be bothered by them, alas... these are some of the things I think about at night. Perhaps in part responsible for my belief / lack of knowing.
And fine questions they are! But I do hope that you are not losing sleep over them.
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
RE: Why do you believe? - Lavazza - 08-19-2009
Hello again 3D!
3D Sunset Wrote:Well, I wouldn't have put it in those exact words, but yes... I do think that essentially what you say happened on several occasions especially during Book I. As you further your studies in the subsequent books, I think you'll see a much more harmonious relationship between Don's questions and Ra's answers. I do not think that Ra intentionally included mis-information though. Rather, he simply answered in a way that would not infringe Don's free will. I think that this is a very important aspect of the material, and you really must bear in mind that the Law of One books were generated within the context of a conversation between Ra and Don. As such, there may be many nuances to the discussion, questions, and answers that are not recorded in the black and white of the book. I think that this is most an issue during the discussion of transitory material, so I tend to discount all of it.
Hmm... hmm... So in your opinion, Ra would basically attempt to terminate a line of un-important questioning by providing stunted answers such as 'You are correct.', and in doing so preserve Don's freewill? So perhaps Ra listened to the question to see if there was anything remotely correct about it, while not elaborating on the in-correct aspects so as to move on to other topics? This could be argued to be a form of mis-information. I will agree however that that is not the same as deliberate inclusion of false material.
3D Sunset Wrote:I do not think that Ra ever resigned control of the instrument during any of the sessions. As you'll see in Book III, the nature of the contact with Carla was just to intimate for that. I do agree with the idea of de-tuning, though. When transitory questions were asked, it caused the radio that was Carla to drift off signal some. At that point, it could have picked up any noise that was flowing around.
I see, and this is where my general question / concern arises, how are we to discern when this de-tuning happens? I suppose you have a good philosophy of not taking anything transient too seriously. I am having a hard time resolving the logical conflict within my intellect though. It's the same sort of conflict I would have with a normal person on the street giving me advice, that being, if part of what information given was bad, I would suspect the remainder as well. Of course Ra is not some person on the street, but in an effort not to raise any entity's authority above anyone elses, I am forced to apply the same thinking.
3D Sunset Wrote:I agree that personal resonance is key, and this may surprise you, but I say that if STS doesn't resonate with you, then GREAT! Set it aside. You really can live just fine in this 3D world without it. And who knows, you may be right! Then again, you may find that as time passes, the idea begins to resonate with you. There is nothing that says you won't resonate to different things over time. Don't try to get the cart before the horse, take it one step at a time. Remember that you are acting in service to others, not in service to the Law of One Books that were created by 3D creatures.
I see this as sound advice and I may just follow it
The STS / 'Evil' thread is still coming, by the way...3D Sunset Wrote:And fine questions they are! But I do hope that you are not losing sleep over them.
No, not losing sleep exactly
I do my LOO reading at night that's all. I must say some things are very confusing about the LOO, being that it's such a radical philosophy compared to what the great majority of humanity takes to be consensus reality. But there is also a very large degree of elegance to which I resonate wonderfully. The basic concept of unity, all being one. The eternal nature of our consciousnesses, the desire to experience all things. Those actually make me smile as I sit here typing them out.
RE: Why do you believe? - 3D Sunset - 08-19-2009
(08-19-2009, 01:08 PM)Lavazza Wrote: Hmm... hmm... So in your opinion, Ra would basically attempt to terminate a line of un-important questioning by providing stunted answers such as 'You are correct.', and in doing so preserve Don's freewill? So perhaps Ra listened to the question to see if there was anything remotely correct about it, while not elaborating on the in-correct aspects so as to move on to other topics? This could be argued to be a form of mis-information. I will agree however that that is not the same as deliberate inclusion of false material.
Here is a trivial example of what I'm talking about:
Ra, Book I, Session 12 Wrote:Questioner: What would happen to the entity if he did this? What would happen to his chariot?
Ra: I am Ra. The Creator is one being. The vibratory level of those able to breach the quarantine boundaries is such that upon seeing the love/light net it is impossible to break this Law. Therefore, nothing happens. No attempt is made. There is no confrontation. The only beings who are able to penetrate the quarantine are those who discover windows or distortions in the space/time continua surrounding your planet’s energy fields. Through these windows they come. These windows are rare and unpredictable.
Questioner: Does this account for what we call “UFO Flaps” where a large number of UFOs show up like in 1973?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.
I would suggest that there was actually more to the story about 1973 than was implied by Ra's simple confirmation of an almost insignificant aspect of the "Flap" (that being the random window effect of the quarantine). But, unlike other cases where Ra expanded on Don's questions, in this case - due to its transitory and unimportant nature - Ra simply agrees and lets Don move on. In this example, no actual misinformation was implied, on other occasions though, I believe that misinformation can readily be inferred by readers not sensitive to the dynamic.
(08-19-2009, 01:08 PM)Lavazza Wrote: I see, and this is where my general question / concern arises, how are we to discern when this de-tuning happens? I suppose you have a good philosophy of not taking anything transient too seriously. I am having a hard time resolving the logical conflict within my intellect though. It's the same sort of conflict I would have with a normal person on the street giving me advice, that being, if part of what information given was bad, I would suspect the remainder as well. Of course Ra is not some person on the street, but in an effort not to raise any entity's authority above anyone elses, I am forced to apply the same thinking.
In all truth, in my humble opinion, you simply should not take anything that anyone says at face value. You should listen intently, contemplate, mediate and follow your own inner voice. At the point that your inner voice has weighed in affirmatively, you have crossed the chasm from belief to personal knowledge if not experience.
(08-19-2009, 01:08 PM)Lavazza Wrote: I see this as sound advice and I may just follow it
I look forward to it.
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
RE: Why do you believe? - Lavazza - 08-20-2009
3D Sunset Wrote:In all truth, in my humble opinion, you simply should not take anything that anyone says at face value. You should listen intently, contemplate, mediate and follow your own inner voice. At the point that your inner voice has weighed in affirmatively, you have crossed the chasm from belief to personal knowledge if not experience.
This sounds like solid advice to me. Thanks very much for your perspective, 3D. Little by little I am learning to better navigate the sometimes choppy waters of what I consider to be an ocean of esoteric information.
I feel fortunate that this forum exists for such discourse. And even more so that it is frequented by people who have thought about The Law of One and related materials for many years longer than I have!
Humbled once again,
L.
RE: Why do you believe? - 3D Sunset - 08-21-2009
(08-20-2009, 02:36 PM)Lavazza Wrote: This sounds like solid advice to me. Thanks very much for your perspective, 3D. Little by little I am learning to better navigate the sometimes choppy waters of what I consider to be an ocean of esoteric information.
It is truly my pleasure to be of service. Rest assured that I gain at least as much as I give in each of these interactions.
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
RE: Why do you believe? - Lavazza - 08-27-2009
This post probably belongs to every thread I've written in lately, 'The Confederation', 'Oahspe', 'Pyramids', 'Why are we here (at Bring4th)'. But perhaps this is the best thread. Please excuse the manifesto that follows- but I feel I have come to a major turning point in my spiritual development.
In re-reading this thread again, it reminded me that we had a similar discussion on the basics of belief, in the "dangling threads" thread about six months ago. Here you offered very similar advice:
3D Sunset - http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=75&page=2 ' Wrote:Hi Lavazza,
I've considered the pyramids and many other such references in LOO many times and developed the following hypothesis. First, as you mentioned, Ra says that any manifestation from outside our density such as the pyramids, UFOs, etc have always been presented ambiguously in order to preserve the free will of those encountering them.
Don Elkin's training as a scientist and his underlying need to prove things scientifically, I think, also molded some of the responses that Ra gave him. There are several places where Don ventures into transitory material and it almost sounds to me like Ra is going along with him and agreeing with his train of thought or line of questioning in order to maintain his free will to believe what he wants. As "observers" of the discussions after the fact, it is really impossible to know to what extent Ra was observing Don's conviction of an idea and feeding him what he expected to hear. I think this is especially true of transitory material. I think that it is much less an issue when dealing with non-transitory information, which was the real purpose of Ra's contact.
Based upon this hypothesis, I've taken the approach of reading any and all transitory material in the LOO, as well as Q'uo channelings as nothing more than interesting ideas or even science fiction (recalling that even science fiction can, with time, become science fact).
This is also why I especially tend to dismiss the more sensational parts of LOO. Not because I don't believe them, but because whether or not I believe them really has no bearing on my spiritual evolution and preparation for the Harvest.
So how were the pyramids made? I don't know and really don't care. I do believe that they are a source of wonder and were used for healing and initiation, and were inspired from an other-worldly source.
I also think this is the underlying message behind Q'uo's admonitions at the start of each session. 3rd density is a very complex web of interconnected, supportive and mutually exclusive individual realities, so I think it really is possible that some things can be factual reality for one person and mere fantasy for another. It is up to us to choose which is which.
Still, I do believe that there are certain immutable facts and laws that pertain to every individual existence. These are the golden nuggets in the LOO (and for that matter all Earthly religions), and LOO is particularly rich with them
Food for thought,
3D Sunset
And I apologize for making you repeat yourself!
This has been a very interesting month for the development of my personal view on the Ra material, and on spirituality / "the esoteric" in general. As is my nature as a product of modern society, I always hope for and seek out an 'ultimate guide book' for whatever subject I am trying to learn about. Probably because I have grown up in such an environment that these guides usually exist. For instance in seeking to learn more about the history of nautical navigation, I can easily go to the library and find many solid and complete text books on this. That's because the subject is not very subjective- it is based on hard evidence and years of research that you can do on something that is considered a 'hard' science / history / subject.
Esoterica by nature is, however, not 'hard' in any sense. It is based on personal experience most usually, and has a focus on the non-material aspects such as thought, meditation, enlightenment... etc. Therefore as you have well outlined, 3D, it is unwise to put much if any stock in knowledge that pertains to the 'hard' world of information, if it comes from a 'soft' source. As you can no doubt see from my interest in threads about pyramids, the Oahspe book, earth history time lines and so forth, I've been really trying to wrangle these thoughts out with myself.
I am left to conclude and agree with your statement, pending further evidence, that when Ra indicated that they were the ones who created the great pyramid of Giza by thought, that they merely gave the Egyptians the 'thought' or instructions for its creation. Even this is giving the Ra material the benefit of my doubt, and that's as close as I wish to come to formulating reasons to support a pre-existing belief rather than come to natural conclusions based on what we do know for sure. Why Ra would explain to Don that the pyramid was indeed created overnight with thought alone is a source of unsettling mystery. It may well be as you've speculated that Ra was merely humoring Don, but that seems to fly in the face of the repeated efforts by Ra to transmit information that was not distorted. But I digress.
Because of this conclusion I am left no option but to take up the same view as you, 3D, and discount everything that could be proven false with evidence (basically, all that is transitory). But in so doing this I also shatter my (perhaps immature) wish for a complete and infallible guide to the interesting world of Esoterica / Spirituality. The textbook if you will... And return to a paradoxically less and more stable state of being as I was before I found TLOO, which is that of the wanderer (excuse the pun). Less stable because I am withdrawing from complete belief in TLOO's world view, and more stable in that I cannot be so easily disrupted by contradictory information, predictions, or false assumptions. I will continue my search for the truth- incorporating this and that as it resonates, and not giving mental energy to that which does not. I suppose in many ways I am repeating what you wrote last January, 3D, in my own words
Where does this leave me in regards to the Ra material? Well, a wealth of it still resonates wonderfully with me. So I'm not going anywhere. Even if I completely ceased any belief in TLOO I would still want to interact with all the great forum members here.
As a side note, amidst my developmental turmoil this month I have come to a space of "knowing" of sorts. As I mentioned in passing in the 'Oahspe' thread, finding the true prophecies about the celestial body Pluto (given 50 years before it's discovery) has acted as a key to the rather sizable and intimidating gate of skepticism that had always existed in my mind. Once I read that and fully digested it- I started finding true prophecies from many sources every day, it was amazing. (emphasis added) I liken the experience to a tipping point for me personally. I inundated myself to the point where the scales in my human mind shifted. And suddenly all the things I had been reading about feverishly since Sept. 2008 took a new light, and in all the prophecies that I had been reading about already suddenly clicked in to place. Whatever the contradiction I find, and whatever the evidence for a completely materialist world anyone can present to me, I can never walk back through the gates of skepticism. I will always know that, to borrow a line from Dean Radin, 'Something interesting is going on'.
They say we all have a unique path, and we all have our own personal level of proof that we require (some higher than others, it would seem!). Well, I have found the later at least. The Path is becoming ever more clear as I walk it.
Thanks for reading!
RE: Why do you believe? - 3D Sunset - 08-27-2009
Namaste dear friend, namaste.