TLOO vis-a-vis reality

[Lavazza]

Hey everyone,

I've been directing my energies away from spiritual contemplation over the last month or so and enjoying more secular or mundane aspects of my life, namely my artistic development. (of course all things are spiritual, but I hope you take my meaning). Taking breaks like this are always unexpectedly beneficial as for me as it provides an opportunity to see things in a new light whence you return. Consciousness always evolves and so what I have learned in my time away from TLOO has literally transformed me in to a new person since before I left.

In the last few days I've been thinking about TLOO in general and about just why I hold it as a philosophy above other philosophies. I've also been thinking about the nature of the Ra contact and the small miracle it is that it happened at all. Also, as is a practice I've developed over the last few years, I like to briefly scrutinize my beliefs with an eye towards the skeptical. One thing we can learn from our human history is the danger of becoming irrational in our beliefs.

I've grown to respect Bring4th's collective opinions. I'd therefore like to open a dialog with you. In a as non-threatening a way as possible, I'd love to, for the moment, throw everything to the wind and see what it is that tugs at your heart strings. Why do you believe, what do you not believe?

I thought we could begin to explore these ideas with some text I've captured from the Adonai thread, by unity100:

consistency of a given system of information in itself, and the parallels/verifications that can be done to what we know, increase the reliability of the system of information.

consistency is very important - it should be possible to start from one end of the given system - a twineball of information if you wish - and to reach another end, without having dead ends. moreover, it should be possible to take relevant parts of the twineball and make conclusions, and other parts of the twineball verify and hold that conclusion, and that conclusion hold for different parts too.

however this is not enough - this would just be definition of a basic 'reality'. a reality can exist anywhere - it can even be a fantasy world created in the mind of an author.

this is where verifiability and parallels kick in - the more parallels and verifiable tangents the twineball of information has with any given, verifiable reality - say our current planet, or solar system, or existence - the more 'real' and usable it becomes, in the reality that it is tied to.

ra material fullfills this to an unparalleled extent, as far as anything channeled or spiritual, goes.

I am curious, what in the material do you feel is "more real" and "usable", especially as it relates to our reality? For, although our best physics has inadvertently made room for the world of spirit with theoretical physics (multi-verses, big bang, unseen dimensions, etc), it really is hard to tie most of the Ra material to what your average lay person would call 'reality'. Do you mean that the Ra material is real and usable from an emotional / subjective perspective, or something more tangible in "physical reality"?

Also, you mentioned verifiability. Despite our thread about scientific verification of the Ra material (can't find it now), I do not think that there is a wealth of verifiable information in there. This is more an observation than a criticism- it is at least consistent with the basic confederation rule of providing 'Truth without proof'.

Please chime in (zenmaster, I'm looking at you!)

much love,
Eric

[zenmaster]

this is where verifiability and parallels kick in - the more parallels and verifiable tangents the twineball of information has with any given, verifiable reality - say our current planet, or solar system, or existence - the more 'real' and usable it becomes, in the reality that it is tied to.

ra material fullfills this to an unparalleled extent, as far as anything channeled or spiritual, goes.

First, I'd agree with unity's quote above. He's describing the process of 'polarization' via the principles of the 'experience of mind' archetype. There are primarily two uses of the will that make all of this information 'real' and usable, both are faculties of the mind: thinking and feeling. Thinking - as far as identifying causal chains (connections), and feeling as far as 'harmonizing' - or identifying how a connections may be linked. This experience is what allows the 'spirit' to actualize - which is 'polarization'. This experience can be thought of as 'love', which allows more 'light' to be appreciated.

It is from that perspective that I disagree when people say that compassion 'is' an emotional response. It's simply regarding a situation from the standpoint of a certain amount of STO created 'love' (the blueprint of the logos). There is a depth of being present that is drawing from what is actualized from the spirit. There may be an associated body-mind reaction (feeling) - but, as anyone can see if they look, that (and anything charged, for that matter) is most strongly felt with a 'backdrop' of unconsciousness - or that which you are not yet.

I am curious, what in the material do you feel is "more real" and "usable", especially as it relates to our reality?

For example, in almost every case where a principle is described. The simple, dialectical-monist approach of love/light, teach/learn, space/time. The archetypal principles of mind, body and spirit.

For, although our best physics has inadvertently made room for the world of spirit with theoretical physics (multi-verses, big bang, unseen dimensions, etc), it really is hard to tie most of the Ra material to what your average lay person would call 'reality'. Do you mean that the Ra material is real and usable from an emotional / subjective perspective, or something more tangible in "physical reality"?

Physical reality operates under fixed principles we've scientifically identified through physics. Fundamentally, however, the rules are set by the logos. These rules are much more parsimonious than our current collection of ad hoc, freely invented theories. The Ra material is basically free of technical detail, but suggests Larson's system (of physical theory) is 'a correct system as far as it is able to go' - and it goes very far. Presumably, by 'correct', Ra didn't mean impeccable, but relatively free of inaccuracies of a fundamental nature. Also we know that 'correct' doesn't necessarily mean useful.

Also, you mentioned verifiability. Despite our thread about scientific verification of the Ra material (can't find it now), I do not think that there is a wealth of verifiable information in there. This is more an observation than a criticism- it is at least consistent with the basic confederation rule of providing 'Truth without proof'.

Please chime in (zenmaster, I'm looking at you!)

'hell-to-tha-no'. Of course there is no scientific verifiability of the material. First, a lot of the links are to non-scientific sources or science of dubious validity. A lot of silliness. We already know that most of the subject matter does not present claims in a scientifically testable manner. Even for the little 'transitory' information we have in that regard, the claims of scientific verifiability would require research on the particular subject matter: the Ra Material quote together with a 'claim' based on someone's interpretation. No one really does that because they either lazy, untrained, or not interested. The best one could say is that the material is 'congruent with' or 'non contradictory' to some scientific understanding. It is easy to imagine these people are probably of the mindset that 'what the bleep' is numinously inspiring or actual scientific validation of spirituality.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I'd love to participate in this discussion, but don't have time for a well-thought post. So for now, I'll just give the thread (I believe) you were trying to find: Scientific validation of Law of One series.

And pose a question I am very curious about which somewhat pertains to this thread: Is there evidence to support Ra's timeline for modern humans? Most anthropologists will tell you that genetically modern humans have been around far longer than 75,000 years, are there signs which point to another theory? Theories for modern human behavior would match a little more with Ra's timeline, but didn't the physical and spiritual evolution happen at the same time?

[unity100]

Hey everyone,

I've been directing my energies away from spiritual contemplation over the last month or so and enjoying more secular or mundane aspects of my life, namely my artistic development. (of course all things are spiritual, but I hope you take my meaning). Taking breaks like this are always unexpectedly beneficial as for me as it provides an opportunity to see things in a new light whence you return. Consciousness always evolves and so what I have learned in my time away from TLOO has literally transformed me in to a new person since before I left.

I thought we could begin to explore these ideas with some text I've captured from the Adonai thread, by unity100:

consistency of a given system of information in itself, and the parallels/verifications that can be done to what we know, increase the reliability of the system of information.

consistency is very important - it should be possible to start from one end of the given system - a twineball of information if you wish - and to reach another end, without having dead ends. moreover, it should be possible to take relevant parts of the twineball and make conclusions, and other parts of the twineball verify and hold that conclusion, and that conclusion hold for different parts too.

however this is not enough - this would just be definition of a basic 'reality'. a reality can exist anywhere - it can even be a fantasy world created in the mind of an author.

this is where verifiability and parallels kick in - the more parallels and verifiable tangents the twineball of information has with any given, verifiable reality - say our current planet, or solar system, or existence - the more 'real' and usable it becomes, in the reality that it is tied to.

ra material fullfills this to an unparalleled extent, as far as anything channeled or spiritual, goes.

I am curious, what in the material do you feel is "more real" and "usable", especially as it relates to our reality? For, although our best physics has inadvertently made room for the world of spirit with theoretical physics (multi-verses, big bang, unseen dimensions, etc), it really is hard to tie most of the Ra material to what your average lay person would call 'reality'. Do you mean that the Ra material is real and usable from an emotional / subjective perspective, or something more tangible in "physical reality"?

ra material, from my experience, is usable for all kinds of purposes ranging from philosophy to energetical interactions with one's mama over a quarrel about whether or not to eat a jelly that is put in front of you at dinner.

a lot of the principles described in Ra material are basic principles which are at work all the time. so, energetic/chakra mechanic that is going on during a meditation is no different while trying to refuse eat a jelly that is being pushed onto you by one's mother. it is possible for people to start feeling and seeing various dynamics of energy in the process. what the person may do with these, is his/her choice of course.

physical implications are probably similarly wide - ra disclosed that there was a sphere behind the sun, opposite to this planet. but, it was very small, and locked in 1st density. and still skews some statistical figures.

or, the information about the base principles that larson physics uses may be of use to many a scientist. (and probably, is).

Also, you mentioned verifiability. Despite our thread about scientific verification of the Ra material (can't find it now), I do not think that there is a wealth of verifiable information in there. This is more an observation than a criticism- it is at least consistent with the basic confederation rule of providing 'Truth without proof'.

the verification must hinge on things which we can use and trust.

we may not be able to learn of the sphere behind the sun, unless the governments choose to disclose it. (im not saying that its planet x, its just a sphere). we may not be able to reach the unified field theory. we may not be able to discover remains of atlantis.

but we can verify its validity in our reality, by other sources we trust. what are these ?

chakra/energy informations that is described in a lot of cultures, indian cultures being the most clear.

spiritual material that we trust, this may be edgar cayce.

spiritual information we know to be basic.

other information we can verify (even if a bit trivial) like the info on pyramids, history and so on.

but, for me, the foremost practical verification of the information is study of the energy/chakra mechanic that is described in Ra, and learning and starting to observe it about. when you see things in action, you start to see that the thing actually has footing in our reality.

and anyone can do this to a given extent. however, it may be so that, people who are not working in rays blue and higher, may not be able to differentiate and identify the interactions and energies as clear and sharp as those who work in higher ones.

and indeed, when one passes over a certain ray, the momentum picks up, and paranormal starts to happen.

these would be personal proof of what is usable and workable and verification of the material.

other kinds of verification and footing may be acquired, but these involve extensive knowledge of history (dating to prehistoric), long reflection upon the social and political dynamics and interactions happened throughout history, and examining these against what is told by Ra.

i actually have expressed some of my observations in that respect, in some of the threads we have had on different subjects. they are examples of what can be done with that kind of information.

[Confused]

and indeed, when one passes over a certain ray, the momentum picks up, and paranormal starts to happen.

Is it the blue ray you are referring to here, Unity100?

[unity100]

it should start in green ray. but, green ray is a ray that is rather tolerant and tough, in that it can endure a lot of hardships. and, while in such hardships, the entity may be in situations that may prevent the experiencing of paranormal events (energy situations, unsuitable circumstances and so on), and may not even aware of that.

but, when approaching blue, the entity should be more aware of the energetic dynamics and also more sensitive about its environment. also, the full force of the green chakra would be open, and this also would increase the paranormal element that green ray has.

of course we are talking a bit generic. depending on incarnation plan, the entity may have planned various experiences that would happen through any venue - green ray, indigo, etc.

[Lavazza]

Thanks for your comments guys, and, sorry for the delayed reply.

For example, in almost every case where a principle is described. The simple, dialectical-monist approach of love/light, teach/learn, space/time. The archetypal principles of mind, body and spirit.

I'll play devil's advocate for a while here to tease this line of thought out.. Basically you are responding in the subjective, correct? It's probably unfair to evaluate the Ra material in this way, but the principals described therein could as easily be said to "not work" rather than "work" by the lay person, no? Or would we say that yes, if you apply the principals discussed by Ra then you will absolutely find such and such results? I guess the question here becomes, is it possible to identify and test something that purports to be universe truth in a manner that is scientific? Or to say this in LOO terminology, using the experience of the mind archetype only? Perhaps, perhaps not.

'hell-to-tha-no'. Of course there is no scientific verifiability of the material. First, a lot of the links are to non-scientific sources or science of dubious validity. A lot of silliness. We already know that most of the subject matter does not present claims in a scientifically testable manner. Even for the little 'transitory' information we have in that regard, the claims of scientific verifiability would require research on the particular subject matter: the Ra Material quote together with a 'claim' based on someone's interpretation. No one really does that because they either lazy, untrained, or not interested. The best one could say is that the material is 'congruent with' or 'non contradictory' to some scientific understanding. It is easy to imagine these people are probably of the mindset that 'what the bleep' is numinously inspiring or actual scientific validation of spirituality.

This is where the bulk of my confusion sets in. I've spent some time so far this year learning about a peculiar sub-set of Christianity known as apologetics. This is a group who, feeling threatened by the growing popular mindset that many of the Bibles' teachings are at best allegory and at worst complete fabrication, has set out to "prove" the teachings and claims. Most interesting are those who lay out the case for the literal resurrection of Christ. This is not an easy thing to do, and in my opinion is not successful. The best argument they end up with generally is that you can't prove that it didn't happen- and that's an extremely weak arguement in the face of an extraordinary claim. Now- to tie this back in- this is sort of what I see in the "Scientific verification" thread. Here we have a pre-existing belief system (the LOO and Ra communication) being propped up by a core base (We the Bring4th members) with all sorts of weak "scientific" research. Please don't get me wrong here- I believe the Ra transmissions are genuine and unique- and probably the best thing we have on Earth in the way of explaining who we are, what we're doing and where we're going as humans and eternal spirits. But I say that primarily because the information rings true to me on a deep intuitive level (matrix of the mind? I'm not sure). But- a universal truth should be exactly that, universal. It should be true on the inner world of the mind and heart, as well as in the physical sciences. So when it comes to information that is hard to believe, lets use the example of bases on the moon, or humans testing craft at a quarter the speed of light, what can we say? We're pretty much placed in the uncomfortable situation of being in the apologetics' situation. In a nutshell, where "outer reality" is concerned, can we verify anything in the Ra material? Was it pretty much designed so to say so that we could not?

ra material, from my experience, is usable for all kinds of purposes ranging from philosophy to energetical interactions with one's mama over a quarrel about whether or not to eat a jelly that is put in front of you at dinner.

I agree with you unity, LOO is definitely a goldmine for the one who seeks to better navigate the waters of life. And that is definitely enough to keep me reading it over and over, all "outer reality" and transient information aside.

L&L,
Eric

[zenmaster]

Thanks for your comments guys, and, sorry for the delayed reply.

For example, in almost every case where a principle is described. The simple, dialectical-monist approach of love/light, teach/learn, space/time. The archetypal principles of mind, body and spirit.

I'll play devil's advocate for a while here to tease this line of thought out.. Basically you are responding in the subjective, correct? It's probably unfair to evaluate the Ra material in this way, but the principals described therein could as easily be said to "not work" rather than "work" by the lay person, no? Or would we say that yes, if you apply the principals discussed by Ra then you will absolutely find such and such results? I guess the question here becomes, is it possible to identify and test something that purports to be universe truth in a manner that is scientific? Or to say this in LOO terminology, using the experience of the mind archetype only? Perhaps, perhaps not.

It would have to work like this: Based on an interpretation of select material, one forms an understanding - probably relying heavily on the intuition. From the understanding, a rigorous theory is then created that can be tested scientifically. It should provide clear claims which can be falsified and should reference prior research in the relevant fields.

'hell-to-tha-no'. Of course there is no scientific verifiability of the material. First, a lot of the links are to non-scientific sources or science of dubious validity. A lot of silliness. We already know that most of the subject matter does not present claims in a scientifically testable manner. Even for the little 'transitory' information we have in that regard, the claims of scientific verifiability would require research on the particular subject matter: the Ra Material quote together with a 'claim' based on someone's interpretation. No one really does that because they either lazy, untrained, or not interested. The best one could say is that the material is 'congruent with' or 'non contradictory' to some scientific understanding. It is easy to imagine these people are probably of the mindset that 'what the bleep' is numinously inspiring or actual scientific validation of spirituality.

This is where the bulk of my confusion sets in. I've spent some time so far this year learning about a peculiar sub-set of Christianity known as apologetics. This is a group who, feeling threatened by the growing popular mindset that many of the Bibles' teachings are at best allegory and at worst complete fabrication, has set out to "prove" the teachings and claims. Most interesting are those who lay out the case for the literal resurrection of Christ. This is not an easy thing to do, and in my opinion is not successful. The best argument they end up with generally is that you can't prove that it didn't happen- and that's an extremely weak arguement in the face of an extraordinary claim. Now- to tie this back in- this is sort of what I see in the "Scientific verification" thread. Here we have a pre-existing belief system (the LOO and Ra communication) being propped up by a core base (We the Bring4th members) with all sorts of weak "scientific" research. Please don't get me wrong here- I believe the Ra transmissions are genuine and unique- and probably the best thing we have on Earth in the way of explaining who we are, what we're doing and where we're going as humans and eternal spirits. But I say that primarily because the information rings true to me on a deep intuitive level (matrix of the mind? I'm not sure). But- a universal truth should be exactly that, universal. It should be true on the inner world of the mind and heart, as well as in the physical sciences. So when it comes to information that is hard to believe, lets use the example of bases on the moon, or humans testing craft at a quarter the speed of light, what can we say? We're pretty much placed in the uncomfortable situation of being in the apologetics' situation. In a nutshell, where "outer reality" is concerned, can we verify anything in the Ra material? Was it pretty much designed so to say so that we could not?

As far as I know, it's mainly designed to speak to the intuition - a time/space function (hence 'take what resonates'). Using the intuition, we perceive signposts (emerging from our unconscious) that indicate areas where there's potential for rational evaluation.

[Confused]

[quote='Eric' pid='30121' dateline='1298481791']
As far as I know, it's mainly designed to speak to the intuition - a time/space function (hence 'take what resonates'). Using the intuition, we perceive signposts (emerging from our unconscious) that indicate areas where there's potential for rational evaluation.

That explains to me as to why I feel so strongly pulled towards the LOO, in terms of conviction in its veracity.