12-09-2019, 12:42 PM
I'll note that I have yet to actually look further into what Adamu presents; I just go by the descriptions I find, in an attempt to find out whether it's worthwhile.
Putting this description in relation to what Ra presented, what Adamu calls STS and STO is limited to the 4D level only, and ignores the description of the two paths above 4D. (Ra mentions that "battles" as such take place in 3D and 4D, but not above 4D, where differences in the modes of existence makes battle meaningless and obsolete.)
I've read, elsewhere, a number of examinations of less-good channeled sources, and a very common pattern is that of trying to present the ideas of STS and STO as too limited or obsolete, introducing some "superior" option. On examination, it always seems as if the ideas of STS and STO presented are "smaller", simplified versions of the originals, ignoring the subtleties and reducing the ideas to a too conventional and human level. In relation to that, it then becomes easy to advocate something "greater".
Actually, though somewhat vaguely, Ra seems to warn about overly simplified and imbalanced ideas, as well as against the "pantheistic" view which flattens the cosmology too much, placing unity closer to the human level than it is. The fuller description of the cosmos gives it a very high "ceiling", so far removed from human thought at this level that there's no end to open-ended contemplation of what is between unity and this level. (That's one of the things I like the most about the Ra material.)
But there's also a finer point to be made about a different misrepresentation of STS vs. STO, which in time is placed in-between Ra and Adamu. The Cassiopaean teaching, while describing the differences between STS and STO and making the two orientations asymmetrical in how they work (rather than mere differences of agenda), removes some of the simplest underlying structure Ra gives to the ideas. In turn, this has led to elaborations on that teaching, by its main human authors and others, which gradually turn STO into a copy of STS where the "right" agenda is supported instead of the "wrong" one. In relation to that kind of teaching, something like what Adamu presents, with a greater call to unity, may seem like a step in the right direction.
But returning to the older and more complexly structured core teaching of Ra, I've found that it covers all the traditionally transcendent aspects of spirituality, including the value of meditation and striving to understand and live in a spirit of unity to the extent it is possible in 3D. There's no need to introduce "unity" as a striving separate from the two paths. The STO path offers the straightest way there, and at the core is not about fighting. (Also, the asymmetrical "shape" of the dynamics of the two orientations, in relation to one another, seem, from Ra's description, to be key to the rich structure of the cosmos. They are not "oppo-same" in shape below the level where they meet.)
(12-09-2019, 11:18 AM)Ray711 Wrote: I'm not sure if it's exactly the same thing, but this reminds me of another information presented by Adamu where it was said that there's a higher choice over STS and STO; that being "oneness". I believe he also said that STS and STO are battling out a meaningless conflict, and that you can choose either of those paths, but that this so-called path of "oneness" is the superior one.
It doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't resonate with me, and I don't see the logic behind it. "Unity" is included in both STO and STS. Each of those paths is a different interpretation of unity. STO sees the Creator both in self and other-self, and tries to accept the whole. STS sees the Creator in the self, and tries to control other-selves for its benefit. Both are based on the concept of oneness. By accepting other-selves, the STO entity accepts the self and the Creation. By controlling and suppressing other-selves, the STS entity controls and suppresses parts of its self, and of the Creation.
I don't know. The few times I've read material by this Adamu entity it has always made me raise an eyebrow.
Putting this description in relation to what Ra presented, what Adamu calls STS and STO is limited to the 4D level only, and ignores the description of the two paths above 4D. (Ra mentions that "battles" as such take place in 3D and 4D, but not above 4D, where differences in the modes of existence makes battle meaningless and obsolete.)
I've read, elsewhere, a number of examinations of less-good channeled sources, and a very common pattern is that of trying to present the ideas of STS and STO as too limited or obsolete, introducing some "superior" option. On examination, it always seems as if the ideas of STS and STO presented are "smaller", simplified versions of the originals, ignoring the subtleties and reducing the ideas to a too conventional and human level. In relation to that, it then becomes easy to advocate something "greater".
Actually, though somewhat vaguely, Ra seems to warn about overly simplified and imbalanced ideas, as well as against the "pantheistic" view which flattens the cosmology too much, placing unity closer to the human level than it is. The fuller description of the cosmos gives it a very high "ceiling", so far removed from human thought at this level that there's no end to open-ended contemplation of what is between unity and this level. (That's one of the things I like the most about the Ra material.)
But there's also a finer point to be made about a different misrepresentation of STS vs. STO, which in time is placed in-between Ra and Adamu. The Cassiopaean teaching, while describing the differences between STS and STO and making the two orientations asymmetrical in how they work (rather than mere differences of agenda), removes some of the simplest underlying structure Ra gives to the ideas. In turn, this has led to elaborations on that teaching, by its main human authors and others, which gradually turn STO into a copy of STS where the "right" agenda is supported instead of the "wrong" one. In relation to that kind of teaching, something like what Adamu presents, with a greater call to unity, may seem like a step in the right direction.
But returning to the older and more complexly structured core teaching of Ra, I've found that it covers all the traditionally transcendent aspects of spirituality, including the value of meditation and striving to understand and live in a spirit of unity to the extent it is possible in 3D. There's no need to introduce "unity" as a striving separate from the two paths. The STO path offers the straightest way there, and at the core is not about fighting. (Also, the asymmetrical "shape" of the dynamics of the two orientations, in relation to one another, seem, from Ra's description, to be key to the rich structure of the cosmos. They are not "oppo-same" in shape below the level where they meet.)
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)