Bring4th

4dphilosophyproject (at) gmail.com

If you have a serious interest in developing the IUP/AOP and producing a philosophical treatise and curriculum for mainstream university study send an email. Elaborate on what your goals are and what specific interests you may have related to this project.

What is the Ra group's theism when they speak of "the One Infinite Creator"?

How does this theism affect the role of evolution using the stages of metamonism and of polarity and reincarnation as a means of evolving towards becoming a transcendent co-creator (like becoming a next octave Guardian or gaining infinite spiritual mass)?
   
What about when the Quo group speak of a "Godhead" which means "Supreme Being" or when the Hatonn group speak of the "Father" which sounds like a Christian version of an anthropomorphic father figure? 

And what is the Orion alliance's version of a Creator? How does their theistic philosophy motivate them to feel and behave the way they do?
 
These seem like interesting and scholarly questions to address for a LOO scholar.

I'm no LOO scholar but do like the more loose and creative R&D approach which allows this theism topic to be explored, and so with that, on to the topic.
 
The Ra group make reference to a mysterious and transcendent Creator God or Prime Mover and so this part describes a basic transcendent monotheistic God.
.
References are:
"the Creator desires to know Itself"
"in the previous octave there is the mover and the moved"
"I greet you in the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator"
"Go forth and rejoice in the power and peace of the One Creator"

They also make reference to the Creator God as subdividing to become everything in the Universe to the extent where "every thought is the Creator's" and "every particle of light is the Creator" etc, and this reflects a potentially known and immanent pantheistic God. Potentially known implies no mystery or infinite beingness to aspire towards.

A quick note to clarify in session 14

Quote:the entities of the nation Egypt were in a state of pantheism, as you may call the distortion toward separate worship of various portions of the Creator.

The Ra group are referring to the pantheon of Egyptian gods and so this term should be called pantheonism or polytheism and not pantheism. But, to be fair, pantheism can imply more than one god that is immanent such as if there is a belief in dualism ie primal male and female substance as with a father and mother deity. Then it can be called poly-pantheism as opposed to mono-pantheism.

Panentheism

And so combining transcendent monotheism with immanent mono-pantheism results in mono-panentheism or just plain panentheism when understood as a monism of one substance or one being. This panentheism can be called "all-one-theism" to signify the Ra group's panentheism.

To further clarify panentheism vs pantheism and also pandeism using these specific definitions.

Pantheism: The belief that the physical universe is equivalent to God, and that there is no division between a Creator and the substance of its creation. It is the belief that the Universe is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal, anthropomorphic or transcendent god. (therefore no Godhead, Supreme Being or Father referred by Quo and Hatonn)

There is no need for a spiritual Logos influence to have a Primal Triad of Free Will, Love and Light and thus no need for veiling or reincarnation to aspire towards becoming a transcendent being and eventual merging with the Great Central Sun. It's more like the notion of the non-evolutionary Hindu interplay of Lila in the similar pandeism. (according to the following definitions)

Pandeism: A belief that God became the entire universe and no longer exists as a separate being. Therefore all is co-creator and there is no existing one Infinite Creator to know Self or a Prime Mover/Motivator with Logoic motivation to evolve towards transcendence.

Lila is comparable to the Western theological position of Pandeism, which describes the Universe as God taking a physical form in order to experience the interplay between the elements of the Universe. It is interplay and experience but with no explicit motivation to evolve towards transcendence and Oneness and therefore no particular need for polarity or veiling or reincarnation. 

Scientists ie Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan, who don't believe in reincarnation, and therefore not an extended spiritual evolution, were considered pantheists or pandeists. 

Sagan's son says this:

Quote:Einstein wrote, "We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal," "My father -- Carl Sagan -- believed in the God of Spinoza and Einstein, God not behind nature, but as nature, equivalent to it."

Lovela vs Lila
Meaningful and motivational interplay and experience involving evolution towards transcendence and Oneness does imply the need for polarity and veiling and reincarnation and this kind of interplay may be called Lovela to emphasize the need for love and meaning. 

So Lovela is comparable to the interplay and experience of Panentheism or "all-one-theism".

Panentheism: Like Pantheism, the belief that the physical universe is joined to God. However, it also believes that God is greater than the material universe, and so the divine both transcends and is immanent in everything. The notion of Quo's Godhead or Supreme Being seems consistent with this while the 4D Hatonn's notion of Father seems a bit too restrictive and anthropomorphic. 

As with a male and fatherly Sun God deity, the father archetype probably resonates for them to contemplate the panentheism or "all-one-theism" nature of both an immanent and transcendent Creator. 

A basic definition from philosophers is that anthropomorphism means "the unjustified projection of human qualities on things that are not human" -- but perhaps it is justified and perhaps the notion of personalizing the Creator God is also justified because of the inter-subjectivity of our experience with the Creator/Experiencer.

This inter-subjectivity is a branch of philosophy called "phenomenology" which comes very close to new age philosophy and worth explaining in another post.

But to sum up -- the evolutionary stages of metamonism using IUP/AOP and the motivational intention of panentheism with the Lovela, or interplay of Infinity and Unity, or All and One -- "all-one-theism" -- seem like a perfect fit. 

For a colorful example, think of the movie Avatar and the ever-evolving Navi from the planet Pandora who worship in a panentheistic way.

In a later post a revised IUP/AOP derivation of panentheism from the Xandria thread will be explored. 

Here's a revised IUP/AOP derivation of panentheism or all-one-theism that Carla and the Buddha happen to believe based on quotes at the very bottom of this post.

The AOP version has a suitable semantics for this derivation in which AOP = AO + OA.

Enthusiasm is a great emotion and is derived from the Greek enthos or "a God within". 

Enthusiasm is also derived from entheism and pertains to AO or "All is One" which becomes personalized to "All is I" and therefore "Creator is I" or "Creator is within I". AO is defined as injective or inward directed which directly applies to this inward mode of entheism.

To assert that "the Creator is within I" implies self-focus, self-care, self-concern, self-love and self-service, especially when realized that it is equally "the Experiencer within I", since the Experiencer/Creator dynamic is a more accurate description. Think of it also as inward enthusiasm towards self.

See The Creator/Explorer Dynamic thread explaining Experiencer/Creator
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=12142

Exercises for the "Experiencer within" is the "All is One" or AO mode.
1. Assert or allow the wonder/curiosity underlying all moments to see you as the Experiencer. See the Experiencer as you.
2. Assert or allow another being to look at you as the Experiencer. See the Experiencer as you.
3. Assert or allow your reflection in the mirror to look at you as the Experiencer. 
See the Experiencer as you.
4. Assert or allow the experience of essence to look at you as the Experiencer. 
See the Experiencer as you.

This is actually inward entheism that recognizes that, from my experience, "God is within me" and, from your experience, "God is within you" and, from a rock's experience, "God is within a rock" etc. 

And so, by induction, "God is within All" and implies inner focus and immanence and is a necessary condition. This is a version of pantheism where the Universe or Creation is considered as the body of God which allows the knowing of the immanent nature of the Creator but not of Its transcendent origin or destiny. 

The inward entheism of AO is now complete, and now it's on to the seemingly outward entheism of OA or "One is All" which becomes personalized as "I am All" and therefore "I am the Creator" or "I am in the Creator". OA is defined as projective and outward directed which directly applies to this outward mode of entheism.

To assert that "I am in the Creator" implies other-focus, other-care, other-concern, other-love and other-service especially when realized that it is equally "I am in the Experiencer" since again, the Experiencer/Creator dynamic is more accurate. Think of it also as outward enthusiasm towards other.

Exercises for being "in the Experiencer" is the "One is All" or OA mode.
1. See through variation to experience the wonder/curiosity underlying all moments. 
See the Experiencer.
2. Look at another being. See the Experiencer.
3. Look at your reflection in the mirror. See the Experiencer. 
4. Look at the experience of essence. See the Experiencer.

This is actually outward entheism that recognizes that, from my experience, "I am in God" and from your experience, "you are in God" and from a rock's experience "the rock is in God" etc. 

And so, by induction, "All is within God" and implies outer focus and transcendence and is a necessary condition. To seek outward into God is to seek the transcendent beingness of the Creator whose origin and destiny is shrouded in mystery. 

Now that the transcendent seeking outward is recognized, it automatically allows one to also realize that seeking inward into the "God within" has its level of mystery and transcendence and goes beyond the materialistic type of pantheism practiced by Einstein and Sagan.

To summarize, the AOP = AO + OA provides, respectively,  the combination of "God is within All" with "All is within God" which equals a panoramic or all-encompassing expression of panentheism and the experience of both immanence and transcendence. From the AOP this panentheism can be called all-one-theism. Being mutually within can also be considered as direct identity which the Ra group has mentioned as their aspiration in 7D.
 
For this all-one-theism, the relationship between the Experiencer/Creator and the world is an internal relationship in that the Experiencer/Creator affects the nature of the world and the world changes the nature of the Experiencer/Creator. 

The all-one-theism relationship which is based on "the Creator's desire to know and experience Itself", or Original Impulse, and "the Creator's desire to return to Source", or Original Thought, is the evolutionary interplay of All and One that is purposeful and meaningful and is called Lovela. 

The term Lovela is derived from "love" as a Prime Variation towards returning to Source, and from "vela" as a universal veil derived from Free Will, to inspire seeking and evolution. Vela is actually defined as such, based on the WordWeb dictionary.

So Lovela = Love + Vela is an actual principle of purposeful interplay of All and One, whereby the Experiencer/Creator dynamic affects the nature of the world and the world changes the nature of the Experiencer/Creator dynamic. 

This panentheistic Lovela interplay allows one, as a co-Experiencer/Creator, to have an intersubjective relationship with the Experiencer/Creator dynamic that can be personal, interpersonal and anthropomorphic, archetypal and mythical.

Levels of relationship in 4D, 5D, 6D and beyond have this Lovela interplay and so will be developed further in a 4D Philosophy Treatise under "philosophy of love" or the Affections which was touched on in the Xandria thread. 

Finally, here are two panentheism quotes to consider.

Carla's quote “All is in the All, and the All is All.”  

Buddha's quote “He who experiences the Oneness of life sees his own-self in all beings, and all beings in his own-self."  

Hi there.

Speaking just for myself, I might suggest that it's unfair and impractical to bend the LOO teachings around such definitions.  Axiomatically, to define is to delimit, and what the LOO speaks to is a philosophy surpassing limits and reaching towards Eternity and Infinity and, ultimately, Mystery.

Cognitive mapping of "reality" may be one useful way to create guidance for interacting with the Eternal, but bear in mind that it's merely your, or someone else's, construct.  It does not approach the real thing.

"The Real Thing," as I prefer to interpret the presentation, is approached through absolute humility and nakedness of conscious awareness, rather than through attachment to this or that thought form.

I hope this is somehow useful.

Hi peregrine,

I'm just exploring a more philosophical approach which is part of the purpose of this "Studies" subforum as described below.

Quote:Bring4th Studies
The Studies portion of Bring4th is a space of intentional and focused discussion. Threads posted within the forums under the Studies category are posted with the purpose of really digging into a topic and exploring it from varying perspectives.

Varying perspectives is what this thread is about and encourages intellectual freedom of expression.

I'd welcome your input in that regard. What do you think Ra's Theism is?

Sorry, I didn't mean to discourage your offering your views.  Perhaps it would be better if I simply state that I regard the LOO perspective on Divinity as transcending conventional concepts of theism.  Although Ra & Co. often use conventional references such as Creator, etc., the broader understanding is that what you are, what the Creator is, cannot be approached through language and conceptual construction.  It can only be approached (such as at the time of one's expiration of terrestrial consciousness) with a naked, open heart.

Given that particular perspective (among many others, I'm sure), I'll leave it up to you to detrmine the utility of the explorations you describe.

peregrine

You need to understand that my approach is towards communicating this topic to 3D/4D folk in a university class setting and not at a meditation retreat, which is fine in its own way, and which of course where it would be much more experiential and wanderer-friendly.

You did say here:

Quote:Perhaps it would be better if I simply state that I regard the LOO perspective on Divinity as transcending conventional concepts of theism.  Although Ra & Co. often use conventional references such as Creator, etc., the broader understanding is that what you are, what the Creator is, cannot be approached through language and conceptual construction.

Asking "What is LOO's perspective on Divinity?" seems to me different from "What is Ra's Theism?" and I am addressing and citing what group entities ie Ra and Quo and Hatonn have said regarding a Divinity or a Creator-God.  

In the above questions, LOO is a principle and Ra, Quo and Hatonn are group entities for which there's a difference in how to use the notion of perspective. A principle's perspective vs an entity's perspective.

As mentioned in the OP, I am also interested in the Orion group's Theism, so this philosophical approach is meant to be somewhat more broad and analytical. Think of it as a Phd dissertation or a Philosophical Treatise which is not targeted to wanderers but to 3D/4D folk with the need to understand through 3D/4D language and mental constructs. 

In communicating there's no direct mind-melding or 4D telepathy going on except perhaps when a rapport develops while discussing, and even if there was there is still a residual language-semantic nature to thoughts, feelings and concepts to translate through among diverse-minded 3D/4D people.

With all that said, it's good to clarify the purpose of this and other threads ie What is Ra's LOO?

Now for a change of pace and some pre-holiday fun here's a sort of editorial/parody on how I present this topic and other topics ie What is Ra's Monism?
-------------------------------------------
The Tonight Show's Jimmy Fallon has been doing some great skits while impersonating Donald Trump. He even did a skit with "the Donald" on his show and it's on youtube.

Think of JF as DT expressing his multifarious views on the topic of this thread. Feel free to add your own "Trumpisms" as he weighs in.

DT as a free willist
What is Ra's Theism? It's anything you want it to be.

DT as a nondualist
What is Ra's Theism? It neither "is" nor "is not".

DT as an intellectual elitist
What is Ra's Theism? It's beyond the ambiance of your language system.

DT as a spiritual elitist
What is Ra's Theism? It's inconceivable, and so are you, my silly friend.

DT as a nihilist
What is Ra's Theism? It's a meaningless question.

DT as a solipsist
What is Ra's Theism? It means nothing to ME.
-----------------------------------------------
Did you embellish with some Trumpisms?

A future thread on the astropsychology and evolution of Donald Trump is in the works because he actually has the potential to go through a major spiritual transformation -- almost like a walk-in experience -- based on his unique, once-in-a-lifetime Sun progression from Leo to Virgo next year. 

It's potentially a total shift of consciousness and ethical perspective and focuses towards being a Public Servant and Reformer in terms of archetypal expression.

Does he win the presidency? This progression points towards a good possibility given the momentum and 100th Monkey effect of his Make America Great Again nationalist and anti-globalist movement.

(12-15-2015, 02:33 PM)4Dsunrise Wrote: [ -> ]peregrine

You need to understand that my approach is towards communicating this topic to 3D/4D folk in a university class setting...

Ah, well, now that you put that more directly, I can see how useless were my prior responses.

I guess my problem is that I don't see what's to be gained by discussing theism.  It could be entertaining (to some degree), but what's the goal?  In my case, the goal is to become a better instrument for consciousness, and this or that philosophy or perspective on theism doesn't seem all that helpful compared to doing the work of clearing the horse poop out of the lower energy centers, increasing my capacity to receive divine love and support, practicing using my instrument for benevolent in-the-moment offerings of kindness, and so forth.

Philosophy can ponder consciousness, yet consciousness is a vast thing of which philosophy represents but a very slender component.  I'm not knocking philosophy, per se, but with the entire subconscious, super-conscious, collective, etc. out there to be explored and balanced, why not invest your energies in preparing your awareness for things far more vast?

(Of course, why would you do such things unless you held to a philosophy which under girds your commitment to them?)

Same goes for the abundant intellectual discussions about the Ra Material, etc.  Does all that help you to love more deeply or shine more brightly?  Does it release the flow of your energy?  Or is it mainly a high sounding way of dodging that "journey of the 14 or so inches from the head to the heart?"  Surely the deeper experience of your own being is more satisfying that merely talking about unknowable gods, don't you think?

Or......maybe it's not that simple.........?

Peregrine seems to be striving for 7th density Buddhahood which is a valid goal of some Wanderers while here during this 4th Density transition.

This may be reflected in his natal astrology chart which probably has a high Pisces and 12th House concentration. To those with that configuration -- "Let go and let God" as said by the Piscean theme.

My natal chart reflects more Aquarian interests and activities which is exactly what this 3D/4D effort of New Era Development is about.

Each Wanderer is unique and has a unique purpose while here on Terra Firma. Mine is doing what I'm doing as reflected by my Tropical personality-directed Aries Sun in the Aquarian 11th House. Or, my Sidereal soul-directed Pisces Sun in the same Aquarian 11th House.

There are other planet factors that support this for me in an overall AstroPsychological framework and I'm sure there are other Wanderers who realize the importance of helping 3D/4D people during this critical transition.

And again some are meant to be like Peregrine and pursue their mystical endeavors.

(03-21-2016, 01:29 PM)4Dsunrise Wrote: [ -> ]Each Wanderer is unique and has a unique purpose while here on Terra Firma. Mine is doing what I'm doing as reflected by my Tropical personality-directed Aries Sun in the Aquarian 11th House. Or, my Sidereal soul-directed Pisces Sun in the same Aquarian 11th House.

Which do you feel is more valid, if you don't mind me asking -- the sidereal zodiac or the the tropical zodiac? I tend to favor the tropical zodiac but I'm always interested to hear what others think.