Bring4th

This topic is towards understanding Ra's LOO, besides it being a call to a progressive social and educational movement. So this is properly LOO whereby "each post should be contemplated and crafted carefully and intentionally. Posts may contain a wide variety of differing perspectives informed by unique experiences, so long as each perspective contributes something meaningful and relevant to the discussion." 

What is Ra's LOO?

Picture this for yourself.

While sitting in a cafe there are three college students who walk by your table and notice your book with the cover showing Ra and the Law of One.

They say to you "Hey there! We couldn't help but notice. We are philosophy graduate students who are seriously thinking of doing dissertations related to esoteric and new age philosophy and are intrigued by your book."

You say, "Oh yeah, it's definitely intriguing."

They then ask, "Well, we would very much like to know, what is Ra's LOO?"

You ask them, "Okay, do you have a couple hours to hang out here?"

They say, "We have the whole afternoon free. We'll buy the coffee and sandwiches if you'll take the time to tell us what Ra's LOO is."

You say, "Sounds good to me. I'll take a large Moca Joe and a tuna on rye. Let's get comfortable."
--------------------------------------------------
Okay Forum Moderators and other LOO veterans -- here's your opportunity to be LOO teachers and describe and explain what Ra's LOO is to a few bright and sincerely interested young people.

How do you start describing Ra's LOO to them? 

Ra's LOO is....

A philosophy? A religion? A philosophy about what? What does Ra's LOO mean?
What are its principles and implications? Is there a God? What kind of God? How is Ra's LOO different from other esoteric and new age philosophies? 

Do you have these young people's attention and are you on your 2nd coffee?
----------------------------------------------------
Seriously, LOO veterans please share in a post here answering the question, "What is your interpretation of Ra's LOO in terms of how you would describe it to a bright, open-minded person? What's your introductory description?"

Think of this as a requirement to become a qualified LOO teacher -- like it is done with high school teachers.

This OP is not meant to annoy but to stimulate a new movement towards becoming better students and teachers of Ra's LOO. Maybe you can start coffee house group discussions with the public in your town or city. Make a banner or sign to catch people's attention. Think of yourself as an activist in a social and educational campaign.

But first share your approach to describing Ra's LOO for all the other 5800+ registered folk and potential teachers here to read and take ideas from. This should then provide a foundation of introductory knowledge to take with you to the cafe.

Of course, feel free to offer other ideas on how to stimulate this "cafe campaign".

This is like trying to teach Zen Buddhism to a scientist: They ain't going to understand the silencing of the mind required in daily life to profess and practice the philosophy honestly. If they will write anything, they are going to end up writing about chakras and pyramids instead and give a tiny blip of a citation to unity. I say this with the hope of being proven wrong.

Yes, I'll say it again: Chakras, pyramids and tarot cards are not The Law of One; It's like saying tea is the whole point of the tea ceremony.

Quote:"I am Ra[...]The Confederation of Planets in the Service of the Infinite Creator has only one important statement. That statement, my friends, as you know, is 'All things, all of life, all of the creation is part of one original thought.'[...]

We are those who are of [The Law of One]. In our vibration the polarities are harmonized, the complexities are simplified, and the paradoxes have their solution. We are one. That is our nature and our purpose[...]

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is [The Law of One...]

The Law of One, though beyond the limitations of name, as you call vibratory sound complexes, may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator[...]

The Law of One states simply that all things are one, that all beings are one[...]When your peoples grasp infinity, then and only then, can the gateway be opened to [The Law of One...]

There are no mistakes under [The Law of One...][The Law of One being universal], there are infinite forms, infinite understandings, but the progression is one[...]"

Hi 4Dsunrise  

Well I certainly do not consider myself a veteran of the material, but I am glad I have some life experiences under my belt. These books have initiated more self reflection than anything else I have experienced, especially when catalyst has come to repeat itself. I think Dialectical Monism is a good description and Heraclitus offers a paradoxical statement. "Men do not know how that which is drawn in different directions harmonises with itself. The harmonious structure of the world depends upon opposite tension like that of the bow and the lyre." (from wiki)

It's a philosophy on the meaning and purpose of life, as well as an explanation for the existence of evil. It's a universal philosophy too, in that the same "map" could be used anywhere else in the cosmos I believe. I will come back tomorrow so I can transcribe an explanation that Bring4th Gary gave on the In The Now radio show earlier this year. (It was quite a good one!)

Another member, and archetype forum curator, Justlikeyou expressed that the LOO was niche, and I think that is an insightful word to use regarding the Philosophy. If you went into an esoteric book store it would probably be tucked away in a corner somewhere.

Hugs my fellow virgoan    

(12-08-2015, 04:46 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ] Chakras, pyramids and tarot cards are not The Law of One

Energy centres 

You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

Quote:Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.


That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

This idea here sums it up for me, it doesn't go too heavy or into annoying religious or flowery explanations "all are one, all are love" etc that can literally turn a person away when you describe it.

Ra poses a simple logical challenge, forces you to chew on it in your head, those philosophy students would of loved it in your example. 

I find it's easiest to use life-like analogies like the breath. I might say, the air we are breathing, is it still or is it moving? Is it your air or is it my air? Where does the air of your breath start and end and where does mine begin?

There is no difference in the air we breathe, it is one. Thus so is our breathing. By connecting the philosophy to the body it is directly demonstrated the awesome power of unified thought. Realizing that we are all powered by the same life, the same vein of vitality pouring forth from infinite potential which lies at the heart.

Do you know why your heart beats? We know its function, its structure but do we know its reason? To sustain LIFE! As our breath is one and that we are all drawing breath in the same way with the same air and the root of the functions of our body reside with the heart we see that it is our hearts that are wired together. The breath is one because the heart is one. Thus we have the same life inside us that we may choose to each use in our individual way.

I think this is the heart of the Law of One as espoused by Ra. It is the rejoicing of the life and love of ourselves whom are the Infinite Creator experiencing ourselves. We are the heart feeling the heartbeat. The breath taking in the air. The movement towards life which becomes transformed with each breath. A life of light and love and eventually wisdom and unity. It is a philosophy of inspiration and cherishing of the experience available to us. Ever thanksgiving for the opportunity and to be aware that we are so important yet so is everyone else. The recognition if true, pure uniqueness in all things, thus held together as One.

It is summed up as, 'Are you not all things?'

Quote:How do you start describing Ra's LOO to them?

"Ra's Law of One" is a meaningful and applicable way to frame the situation, in shorthand. But for those who, like yourself, enjoying maximizing accuracy, the statement might be made slightly more accurate by saying:

"Ra's take on the Law of One"

"Ra's interpretation of the Law of One"

Framing it thusly helps to establish the, shall I say, free-standing, non-dependent, supra-ordinate nature of the Law of One.

If one is seeking to really understand what Ra is communicating, then one must recognize that the Law of One is.

With or without Ra's existence, with or without Ra's message, with or without any reference to that source of intelligence that calls itself Ra, the Law of One exists and operates in every iota of the universe. Indeed it is another term that points to the ground of our very own beings.

Ra, then, is a humble messenger of the Law of One; a messenger with their own particular "slant" to offer.

1.0 Ra: We hope to offer you a somewhat different slant upon the information which is always and ever the same.

*******************************


To respond to your question, if you want to share the Law of One with another entity, the best way to do so is through your own conscious realization of oneness with the Creator. The deeper and truer that realization, the more your very being effortlessly emanates and communicates the Law of One to another, without necessity of words.

But you intend the question to mean how does one share the philosophy itself - densities and octaves, polarity and chakras included.

If there is a request for service, or an interest expressed from the other self - that is to say, if the act of sharing is not evangelizing or proselytizing the individual - then perhaps one place to start would be wherever the material meets you the most strongly, 4Dsunrise. Whatever sparks your passion, and love; whatever activates your own spiritual and philosophical quest; in other words, whatever most lights you up inside about this system of thought. Start there and share your love as it naturally arises for you.

There's no one right entry point into this material.

Something fundamental in my soul knew what I was reading the first time my eyes fell upon Session 1.

I didn't encounter an organized, structured, distilled, or even tutorially arranged teaching of the material. I just encountered the first session of Ra's words. My tears were confirmation enough.

Once upon a time, when I was in fourth or fifth grade (several years back), one day in school they showed us a movie about Hamlet wherein an old guy (probably about my age now) explained that you can engage with the play on various different levels.  One level would be the ghost, murder, revenge story; another would be a social exploration of how to live in a world where people deceive and kill one another for personal gain; and so on.

Clearly, the Ra Material can also be explored and engaged on a variety of levels.  There's the Dewey Larson, alien space craft, government conspiracy level.  There's the deciphering the the tarot symbols detective story.  There's the cosmological framework of the densities, and so forth.  There's also abundant fodder in there for philosophical discussion, if that's your thing; but, since you asked me, I would tempt you to take one step deeper and use the Ra Material as a guide to walk through the looking glass of consciousness.  Philosophy can discuss it, but it's something else again to surrender to fuller experience of it. 

Within the framework of the Ra Material, if you ask what is consciousness, what is its essence, how small, how encompassing, you will find some interesting answers.  If you ask how to refine your consciousness (become more conscious, shall we say), again you'll find interesting answers.

I would emphasize this level of engagement for any who were interested because it is one of the most enduring.  Very little travels with you, as you, when you transmigrate, but what does are forms of consciousness.

Not to mention Ra's comments to the effect that it's primarily Wanderers who will understand the materials. One could argue that he may have engaged in these teachings largely to provide a guide for Wanderers and to aid in their activation, while of course anyone else who happens to find greater enlightenment through them is a nice side benefit.

(12-10-2015, 12:26 AM)peregrine Wrote: [ -> ]Clearly, the Ra Material can also be explored and engaged on a variety of levels.  There's the Dewey Larson, alien space craft, government conspiracy level.  There's the deciphering the the tarot symbols detective story.  There's the cosmological framework of the densities, and so forth.  There's also abundant fodder in there for philosophical discussion...

That's a good way to put it. The material does have multiple interweaving veins of thought, each part of the larger tapestry, but each, when isolated, possessing its own particular appeal. In addition to those you name above, there is to some extent an aspect of Applied Metaphysics: crystal technology, ritual white magic work, psychic self-defense, etc.

Personally, the philosophy has always been the big draw for me. I was initially quite fascinated by the cosmology, and still of course am, but the deeper value is in the essence of the mystical vein of thought. I tend to gloss over aspects of the timeline, like when Yahweh did what to whom.

(12-10-2015, 01:20 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: [ -> ]Not to mention Ra's comments to the effect that it's primarily Wanderers who will understand the materials. One could argue that he may have engaged in these teachings largely to provide a guide for Wanderers and to aid in their activation, while of course anyone else who happens to find greater enlightenment through them is a nice side benefit.

Is the "he" in your post Ra or 4DSunrise?

Ra's stated intent, and thus principal goal, was to lessen the distortions given to their teaching of the Law of One, a project to which they are bound by responsibility.

But I suspect you're correct in that Ra understood their, shall we say, target demographic, i.e., wanderers. Ra likely recognized that - for those ready to awaken somewhat to the reason and purpose of their incarnation (pierce the veil of forgetting) - this information would do just that. A postcard from home that jogs the memory.

**********************

I was pondering the OP's question. What if there were, say, a college course on the material, attended by those who desired a structured, tutorially arranged teaching of this system of thought.

You could start with the small picture (life on Earth at the time of harvest) and expand out to the big picture (the macrocosmic universe, the primal three distortions, etc.) Or, vice versa.

You could tell the story of the cosmology, densities and polarity included, or focus on personal spiritual evolution within the framework of the chakras. You could simply read and study together, as a group. Or, if you really wanted to teach the Law of One material (secondary to the teaching your own being offers), you could teach disciplined modes of seeking, service, and worship.

Austin and I are making an attempt at drafting a new introduction to the Law of One. We've developed an outline of four major sections:

I. Ra Contact story (how it came to be)
II. Cosmology
III. Philosophy
IV. Readership

Were I to design a course, I think I might use the same outline, though it could be trimmed to just II and III.

Personally I think it helpful to have the structure or framework of the cosmology in place to situate the philosophy. But, I am a somewhat left-brained, analytically minded person. There are other more creative ways to approach its teaching.

(12-11-2015, 01:14 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: [ -> ]Austin and I are making an attempt at drafting a new introduction to the Law of One.

I wish you success in convincing a wider audience to struggle past the various hardships and impediments the text offers to its readers such as the idiosyncratic vocabulary (densities, etc.), the factual errors (discussed in places in the forum), the fragmentary nature of the text, the homophobia (as it would be interpreted) and whatever else that makes it such a demanding read.  (One friend felt the designation "the instrument" was a derogation.)  I don't think anyone I've ever commended it to has ever dug deeply into it...much to my personal disappointment.


As an aside, given the devotion to the text required to penetrate it, it's curious to me that a collection of earthlings willing to squeeze through those barriers would end up being as unaligned with one another as those who have populated this forum over the years.  I would have expected more focus and synergy than what I have observed and felt among a supposed gathering of upper density wanderers.  Although there is some, I would have expected it to be more cogent.  I suppose it's a testimony to the success of the forgetting process and the intensity of the illusion.  (In other words, folks like me sure can get distorted hanging out in this corner of the universe!)


By the way, just curious: what's "supra-ordinate" supposed to mean?  I can't fathom it.  Did you intend "supra-ordinal?"

(12-11-2015, 02:23 AM)peregrine Wrote: [ -> ]I wish you success in convincing a wider audience

Thank you. But, I must clarify that the energy or intention of "convincing" plays no role in our mindset. Nor is there the intent to reach a wider audience.

It will simply be built as an introduction or orientation for any reader who picks up the book and doesn't want to jump into Session 1 immediately. A way to ease them into the material and help them establish the framework for understanding what they are about to read. A map before entering foreign territory, if you will.

While I think a good intro could serve the function you describe below: preparing the individual for the concepts they will soon encounter so that said concepts do not become a stumbling block; I think such aid will only marginally increase the percentage of those who will reach the end of the material. No amount of assistance can substitute for the resonance necessary to read, enjoy, and understand the material.

(12-11-2015, 02:23 AM)peregrine Wrote: [ -> ]to struggle past the various hardships and impediments the text offers to its readers such as the idiosyncratic vocabulary (densities, etc.), the factual errors (discussed in places in the forum), the fragmentary nature of the text, the homophobia (as it would be interpreted) and whatever else that makes it such a demanding read.  (One friend felt the designation "the instrument" was a derogation.)  I don't think anyone I've ever commended it to has ever dug deeply into it...much to my personal disappointment.

My batting average in sharing it with others is likewise just north of zero. : )

Though most of what you identify above is true (I might quibble with some of your assessment), nothing proved a stumbling block to me. Love is love, and I fell in love instantly. I recognized it instantly.

It took time, study, and integration to really grasp it, of course, (an ongoing process), but I heard and felt my soul moved by Ra's song the first time their notes entered my ears.

If someone is getting so thoroughly tripped up on the vocabulary, syntax, or other items, then they are not hearing the song; or hearing but not liking.

(12-11-2015, 02:23 AM)peregrine Wrote: [ -> ]As an aside, given the devotion to the text required to penetrate it, it's curious to me that a collection of earthlings willing to squeeze through those barriers would end up being as unaligned with one another as those who have populated this forum over the years.  I would have expected more focus and synergy than what I have observed and felt among a supposed gathering of upper density wanderers.  Although there is some, I would have expected it to be more cogent.  I suppose it's a testimony to the success of the forgetting process and the intensity of the illusion.  (In other words, folks like me sure can get distorted hanging out in this corner of the universe!)

Word. Though differences in personality, attitude, need, and perspective can lead to less-than-aligned, focused and synergestic work in the forums, there is still a great deal of pre-existing alignment. That we are all mutually intelligible to one another, and more or less oriented to serve with empathy and understanding - these are core commonalities.

Another broad spectrum commonality that emerges among those who enjoy the Law of One material is evident within the wanderer profile: the way people who love the material relate to it, the transformative/healing effects it has had upon their life, their orientation with respect their roles on this planet at this time, etc.

(12-11-2015, 02:23 AM)peregrine Wrote: [ -> ]By the way, just curious: what's "supra-ordinate" supposed to mean?  I can't fathom it.  Did you intend "supra-ordinal?"

Opposite of sub-ordinate. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supraordinate

Probably not the best word choice. Just meant to convey that the Law of One is, to put it crudely, greater than Ra.

I can talk to people about everything being connected in terms of the quantum world, or String Theory. I still get eye-rolling, but it is close enough to the common paradigm to be acceptable in conversation. And in this way I can touch on the implications of unity.

The Ra Material, and the LOO, is another story. Firstly, if someone is ready to hear what Ra conveyed, they will find it. "When the student is ready, the teacher appears." Inherent within this idea is that in analyzing the material for mistakes or inconsistencies, one misses the point of coming across it at all. There is either information one resonates with or not. So trying to explain the LOO to others has inherent problems. It borders on trying convince, which does not work because it incites resistance in general.

As Ra did by answering the call, we might simply talk about the Law of One to those who ask us about the subject of the nature of reality. What I would avoid in this endeavor is to cite Ra or any of the books as the only source, similar to Christians thumping a bible. I also don't recommend even feeling this way one's self—that Ra's words are the end-all. We can find our own words individual to each situation to convey the concepts of unity, and reference works as supporting the subject matter or exploring concepts because they are interesting or relevant (densities etc.).

This is not to say I am dismissing The Ra books in any way. I immediately resonated in a big, big way the moment I started reading the first book. I am familiar with other channelings and most pale in comparison. But I also feel that way about Castaneda's books, which most people feel are fiction. I really don't care. This is what I like because the information is either really useful or sets off a resonating note deep inside. So from my point of view, explaining Ra's LOO to strangers doesn't make sense—unless they open the door themselves.

If one is trying to talk about the LOO from Ra's perspective because the door has been opened, I don't think there is a simple elevator speech.

I've been thinking about this lately in a similar vein. There is the idea that Ra was trying to communicate understanding, but I'm not quite sure that is the case. I have sort of been wondering what is the central theme or message that the Confederation wants to communicate, and to me it seems to be mystery.

"However, the understandings we have to share begin and end in mystery."

How does one grasp infinity? What does that mean exactly? It's worth pondering. "The mystery and unknown quality of the occurrences we are allowed to offer have the hoped-for intention of making your peoples aware of infinite possibility. When your peoples grasp infinity, then and only then, can the gateway be opened to the Law of One."

"It is absolutely necessary that an entity consciously realize it does not understand in order for it to be harvestable. Understanding is not of this density."

I think they were interested in giving us tools that help us to develop a framework of meaning from which to operate from to create a joyful state of being. There does seem to be a timeless archetypal nature behind things from which to draw understanding from, yet I think one of their central messages was that.."We're all on our own unique journey, so we don't necessarily know what's best for you. So good luck and have fun in your own universe."

I came across this the other day and thought it was funny..friendly feelings    "If there is fear and doom, the contact was quite likely of a negative nature. If the result is hope, friendly feelings, and the awakening of a positive feeling of purposeful service to others, the marks of Confederation contact are evident."

A link to all the times Ra used the word mystery.

(12-11-2015, 02:27 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]I can talk to people about everything being connected in terms of the quantum world, or String Theory. I still get eye-rolling, but it is close enough to the common paradigm to be acceptable in conversation. And in this way I can touch on the implications of unity.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read any of Marshall McLuhan's works? It might seem like an odd source for enlightenment, but the first time I truly grokked interconnection -years before I found the Ra Materials- was after reading his Understanding Media and contemplating the ramifications of the model he presented. I'd encountered the idea previously, of course, in various Eastern teachings. But McLuhan's concrete descriptions of the relationship between people and their environment was what made it real to me, so to speak.

I mention this because I've found media theory then becomes a 'comfortable' way of discussion interconnections or even the idea of people as field emitters without having to use terminology that causes too much eye-rolling or accusations of woo-woo.

(12-12-2015, 02:05 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: [ -> ]Out of curiosity, have you ever read any of Marshall McLuhan's works?  

No, but I just Googled him and it looks really interesting. I'm going to check it out.

Thanks all for the feedback! Any feedback is good feedback and provides insight of whether a potential social and educational movement is feasible. And of course this is focussed towards 3D/4D grads who are the future of this 4D Earth.

Some of you were approaching it the way I suggested -- that you are sitting with someone (or with the three philosophy grads) in a cafe drinking your coffee, and from this provide the script as to what you would say to them. 

So you would have to use your own words to give a cogent introductory description based on questions I gave here as pointers:

Quote:Ra's LOO is....
A philosophy? A religion? A philosophy about what? What does Ra's LOO mean?
What are its principles and implications? Is there a God? What kind of God? How is Ra's LOO different from other esoteric and new age philosophies? 

Thanks Nicholas (and others here to some extent) -- you were following this approach and the following where I asked.

Quote:...please share in a post here answering the question, "What is your interpretation of Ra's LOO in terms of how you would describe it to a bright, open-minded person? What's your introductory description?"

As you say:

Quote:It's a philosophy on the meaning and purpose of life, as well as an explanation for the existence of evil. It's a universal philosophy too, in that the same "map" could be used anywhere else in the cosmos I believe. I will come back tomorrow so I can transcribe an explanation that Bring4th Gary gave on the In The Now radio show earlier this year. (It was quite a good one!)

Hugs my fellow virgoan --  Nicholas

Actually I'm tropical Aries and sidereal Pisces but I know where you might have thought that in the other thread about Creator/Explorer dynamics.

I do have a Virgo focus with Aries (14 degree) using sub-sign levels which I'm finding to be similar to sub-density levels. I measure it to deeper levels of what I call archetypal depth and focus -- mine in 3-level tropical astrology being Aries - Virgo - Sagitarius. It's meant to integrate IUP/AOP ideas with the astropsychology of Glenn Perry who is a versatile psychologist and teacher. See his lectures on youtube.

Quote:Austin and I are making an attempt at drafting a new introduction to the Law of One. We've developed an outline of four major sections:

I. Ra Contact story (how it came to be)
II. Cosmology
III. Philosophy
IV. Readership

This sounds like a great start and good luck. 

To educate the public (mostly 3D/4D grads) as like a university with open and free exchange of ideas should be a goal for post-new age or New Era organizations with broad, public-minded Aquarian values. 

Based on the above questions I posed (including many others that would be asked by these philosophy grads) I'll try to write up my own introductory script. But, in the spirit of a university, I have a different interpretation from the professor.  What can I say? I'm an Aries - Virgo - Sagitarius which questions others. I do appreciate the tolerance here and hope an educational campaign towards 3D/4D folks can take place.

The Law of One is simply the metaparadigm which conveys the notion that all existential manifestations, regardless of format or perceived indwelling sentience or perceptual awareness, are extensions of the singular being which has as Its existential functionality and machination, the supreme and ultimate characteristic of being the metatemplate and fundamental infrastructure which generates all awarenesses, being the primary progenitor of all phenomenon. 

However, as the analogy goes, a picture speaks a thousand words; so rather than rehashing/redundant reiteration...

The Law of One, which predates and precedes Ra, and which in actuality, catalyzed and facilitated Ra's existence (as well as the existence of all circumstances that were, are, and will be) and the omnidimensional interfacing of Its essence, even when distributed amongst all fractal fragmentations in which It has distributed Its energy and awareness to varying degrees, is...

(12-14-2015, 01:51 AM)godwide_void Wrote: [ -> ]are extensions of the singular being

A singular "being?" 

I don't recall "being" there at the time, but it strikes me that what pre-exists being-ness cannot be a being.  Creation might actually derive from something more mysterious.........................?

(12-14-2015, 05:19 AM)peregrine Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2015, 01:51 AM)godwide_void Wrote: [ -> ]are extensions of the singular being

A singular "being?" 

I don't recall "being" there at the time, but it strikes me that what pre-exists being-ness cannot be a being.  Creation might actually derive from something more mysterious.........................?

A prerequisite for beingness is a being, and one of the qualities imbued in beingness is that of becoming; prior to the generation of the Being we refer to is Itself in a format predating yet paradoxically simultaneously possessing awareness despite It yet having manifest Its greater form(s) to Be, even if in a format which may seem incomprehensible to beings embedded in a distinctive density of awareness wherein the antesentience of antiquity is rarely if ever experienced due to the particular perceptions allocated to such existential nodes & the factors which cause distortional contrast between It before Creation managed to take hold of Its forthcoming potential (which It now obviously has, is in the process of & allways will be.)

Perhaps It All began in a peculiar way which you deem mysterious; mayhaps infinity began as a pale sheen, and a tiny dot emerged which somehow began tapping into imaginative capacities, manifesting colors & patterns. Perhaps it felt like experiencing the phenomenon it produced in a more existentially-conducive manner to It, and, integrating & subsequently regurgitating, reforming, transmuting, transfiguring & projecting Itself, gave rise to a new form congruent with the omnimeta portrait posted above, sans the fully-formed manifestations contained within It. It would have had to produce fledgling contents, projected within Its new form as a self-aware hypersentient template, an exercise in evolutionary experimentation, beginning with a revamping of Its original form as a mini god-dot so to speak, that of photons, light, energy & various assorted metapixels, with the subsequent application of intangible functionalities which, nevertheless, exerted tangible effects.

One might say that it would be fruitful to start small to figure It all out.

From the aforementioned processes in effect, bio-forms of gradually increasing complexity in essence, form, awareness, perception, awareness, and overall consciousness manifest in a streamlining vortice procession of perpetually infinite & eternal existence of the Absolute Tapestry, reconciling with the eventual reassimilation of all attributes, experiences, knowledge, and infinitely various modes & unique manners of experiencing the One Infinite Creation discovered by Its spawned kin, in which the Originator, now in a vastly enhanced form and attaining even more revamping of essence and processes, integrates &, adopting what Its fractal nodes have bestowed upon It following divine digestion, adapts to ever increasing novel factors in existence, and perpetuates new & improved cycles of growth, evolution and creative generation. All versions of It which have attained sufficient spiritual & existential mass characterized by varying degrees of entheonautical prowess and metaphysical interfacing, once properly nestled into the theocentric metaparadigm-revision cycle which It thrives upon, transmogrify into experiential data for the systematic furthering of Its prime evolution in any and all means which It deems efficacious.

Dang you, godwide and your ridicumulous vocabulary. I am often referencing the dictionary on one page while trying to comprehend your post on the next. However...

"antesentience"  can you describe that for me? The dictionary has no idea. Did you mean "that which lies behind and/or manifests sentience? "

Adonai One Wrote:Chakras, pyramids and tarot cards are not The Law of One

Quote:

Nicholas Wrote:Energy centres  

Rays dammit

(12-14-2015, 11:38 PM)Aaron Wrote: [ -> ]Dang you, godwide and your ridicumulous vocabulary. I am often referencing the dictionary on one page while trying to comprehend your post on the next. However...

"antesentience"  can you describe that for me? The dictionary has no idea. Did you mean "that which lies behind and/or manifests sentience? "

Adonai One Wrote:Chakras, pyramids and tarot cards are not The Law of One

Quote:

Nicholas Wrote:Energy centres  

Rays dammit

Heh, you can blame the complicated syntax on the subconscious aspect of my beingness.   By antesentience I intended the prefix "ante-" as "predating/preceding/days of yore", so it would properly refer to the generative genesis, the type of sentience manifest prior to the existential machinations of the One Infinite Creator having emerged in a more comprehensive format.

Simple -> Complex

(12-16-2015, 09:52 PM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]Simple -> Complex

Is that Simple gives way to Complex?

I'd say the definition of the Law of One is hard to describe as there is only one thing and describing it would rather divide it in multiple concepts. Oneness is everything. But the process of the Law of One would be to interconnect every fractal of the creator to better understand how they are in fact a single united thought of infinite love.

(12-17-2015, 04:10 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2015, 09:52 PM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]Simple -> Complex

Is that Simple gives way to Complex?

That which is simple is the same as that which is complex. That which is simple is One and thus infinite. That which is complex is Many and thus finite. The Many are Two, the Two are One and the One is None.

That which is simple is Infinite Intelligence. That which is complex is Intelligent Energy. Potential and Kinetic, Yin and Yang, male and female, these are the Two. The Tao is One. Out of these Two offerings is derived the Many by the Two in the One which are the creative Three, the conjoining of the simple and complex as One Thing. Amun.

Nicholas 

I appreciate your efforts of transcribing per your quote here:

Quote:It's a philosophy on the meaning and purpose of life, as well as an explanation for the existence of evil. It's a universal philosophy too, in that the same "map" could be used anywhere else in the cosmos I believe. I will come back tomorrow so I can transcribe an explanation that Bring4th Gary gave on the In The Now radio show earlier this year. (It was quite a good one!)

I hope you can find the time to do this.

It will kick start this thread again and I can use it to render my own version of an introductory script with the 3 college students -- a nice Q&A session where they batter me w/ tough questions that any bright person with a HS education would ask.

So I'll wait to read Gary's version to get a good sense of a Q&A session.

Thanks in advance.

(12-27-2015, 05:24 PM)4Dsunrise Wrote: [ -> ]Nicholas 



I hope you can find the time to do this.

I do apologise 4Dsunrise for the time lapse. This is one weird version of "tomorrow"! I did spend nearly the entire following evening scanning the radio archives in order to find the one I mentioned, then realised it would take me another whole evening to transcribe it. Given my slow typing and home/seasonal distractions, "tomorrow" turned out to be a well meaning but hasty commitment. 

Bring4th_GLB ((his correct username, who likes to think himself as some lofty director dude maneuvering us all with "little or no effort") joke btw   ) kindly dug out the original essay for me, which saved me from using the play/pause/play/pause/play/pause (recurring) method. 

So here it is 

Quote:Ra called themselves messengers. Messengers of the Law of One. Their message was about the ultimate nature of things, which is another way to say, a message about who and what you are.

About the ultimate nature of things: they said that it, the Law of One, could not be put into words. Only approximated by words. But Ra nevertheless utilized words and concepts. The words and concepts they chose to approximate the ultimate nature of things include:
Perfect. Whole. Complete.
They said that: All is well. Nothing is lost. All is One. All is unified. Infinite. Eternal.
So what do the words and concepts represent? What is their function? Indeed, what is the cosmology itself?
In one word, it all constitutes a map. Ra’s cosmology is not the terrain itself, it is only a map. And, it is important to note, one map among many many other maps.
It is the seeker who must exercise their discernment, find a map or three that works for them, and then USE the map to discover, walk and navigate the actual terrain for themselves. The seeker must test the map against their own experience, and indeed form their own map.
Some maps are better than others, of course, and some maps suit different temperaments better than others. This is why each seeker is drawn to different philosophies, religions, and worldviews, and there will probably never be a one-size-fits-all, in third density at least.
Now, about Ra’s particular map, we received a call to the show last week from a seeker who takes issue with certain aspects of that map. Including Ra’s use of the word “perfect” to describe the ultimate nature of things. This seeker felt the word shouldn’t be used because, in his mind, a seemingly evolving and changing illusion that seems to make so-called “improvements” is not, by definition, “perfect.”
This is where I would like to address paradox.
What is the greatest paradox? The paradox of the One and the Many. How are things simultaneously both One and Many?
Ra says that all is ultimately one, yet every conceivable piece of data that assaults our senses tells us precisely the opposite.
In the exploration of this paradox, one can amass infinite quantities of data to show and explain how things are NOT one. Indeed, one can do that with all of the fundamental descriptions about reality.

• [font=Calibri]The seeker can look at the illusion and say that things are obviously fragmented, partial, and divisible. Clearly it is not, to use one of Ra’s words, “whole”.
  
  [/font]
  
• [font=Calibri]The seeker can gaze at the physical realm and see that, obviously, things are always in a state of becoming, and growing, rising and falling – how could this ongoing, ever changing process be already, to use another of Ra’s words, “complete”?
  
  [/font]
  
• [font=Calibri]The same seeker can look at the human state of affairs on this planet and reliably conclude that things are obviously not, to use another of Ra’s words, “well.”
  
  [/font]
  
• [font=Calibri]And again the seeker can look at everything they know about life itself and determine that there is obviously space, and obviously time. Therefore, that seeker might conclude, the true nature of things is obviously not infinite or eternal. [/font]
  

Such a seeker can paint the most convincing picture that the mystical truth of unity is a fancy idea and nothing more. Indeed, such is the design of the veiled third-density existence: to absolutely convince the entity of the reality of an individual self in a finite work of manyness.


Yet, Ra says not that one fine day things will be complete, or whole, or perfect; or that eventually the universe will be one; but rather Ra says that things are already whole, complete, perfect, and one. No matter how things may seem to appear to our vision; no matter at what point we find our attention in the circuit of densities and octaves.
This is the heart of paradox. We have truths that seem completely contradictory to one another that cannot possibly mutually co-exist, yet they do.


Now, were Ra the sole voice in all of human history promulgating the position of a unified, love-and-light-filled, perfect reality, one might be less inclined to give Ra ear.
BUT the amazing thing is that the mystical core of the Law of One’s message has been with us on this planet in every age and from the most diverse corners of the globe – in all manner of religious, cultural, and historical backgrounds – in the form of the perennial philosophy.
There have been those third-density entities who have awakened to the ultimate nature of things from a multiplicity of starting points. And what do all these proponents of the perennial philosophy say? Each one who awakens has the same basic report to offer: there is only right now; reality is infinite; it is ineffable and beyond the reach of our words, but if we are to employ these poor tools, then words such as “perfect, whole, and complete” are among the best we have to point to the actual nature of the situation.
This is really the situation: ALL who have truly seen and experienced unanimously say to us from the seeming other shore that there is only ever-ending perfection, no matter what seems to be happening on the surface.
But genuine spirituality isn’t about taking the mapmakers at their word. (Though their consistency and consensus across the ages does, in my mind, lend veracity to their report.) Rather, genuine spirituality is about using the map and discovering the truth for yourself through the laboratory of the incarnation, and through the portal of your own experience.
Some of Ra’s claims we cannot verify—say regarding whether the asteroid belt was once a planet that blew itself to smithereens. But we are in a position to discover and verify whether reality is indeed unified, whole, complete, and perfect. Indeed, we are in that position because WE are the reality, WE are the truth, we are already whole, complete, and perfect. But nobody can tell you that. You must find out for yourself.
So while there is value in parsing out the meanings of words—because our beliefs about reality have an enormous influence on the paths that we create—in the end we have to use the words about reality only as metaphorical signs pointing to the ocean, and then, through will and faith alone, make our own way to the ocean.
No sign can ever give us the actual experience of the ocean. We must dive into that mystery ourselves in order to know.  -  GLB

Personally I would rather hang with the mystics, preserve the mystery for those that have ears to hear and say something like - It's a pathless path that neither ends nor begins, no body loses and no body wins, everyone arrives, yet nobody leaves, the trail that we blaze lies right up our sleeves, there are paths in the light, there are paths in the dark. Whatever the choice, its a path with no mark.

But then again, I think the time for mystical poetry is over. The time is NOW (((   )))

Interesting thread, 4Dsunrise! Because "to learn is the same as to teach unless you are not teaching what you are learning; in which case you have done you/they little or no good".

And since not many would like to listen to what we have to say about the Law of One, I believe that among other things this is the purpose of this forum, where those who are interested in the Law of One could gather around and learn/teach this philosophy.

I would like to add to all that has been said this far that the mind/body/spirit complex is our mystery, hidden to ourselves. As it discovers more and more of itself, using its free will during its journey, more and more can be understood. We are in Octave of mind/body/spirit complexes, moving through our discovery through densities towards Home, where experience of this portion of finity will end, and what happens then is mystery. "It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity. Thus all begins and ends in mystery."

I have tried to share this philosophy, which is one among others, with others, and discovered that people are not so much interested in cosmology or our journey through this Octave, i.e. spiritual evolution, but more about things like: is L/L Research a sect? And how did your God Ra contact you? Did *he* build the pyramids? etc.  But then who knows, maybe some gems of philosophy did stick with them without their immediate conscious awareness.

As Ra said - "We are not available to many of your peoples, for this is not an easily understood way of communication or type of philosophy. However, our very being is hopefully a poignant example of both the necessity and the near-hopelessness of attempting to teach."

Don't forget to share your introductory script with us when you are ready, 4Dsunrise.

Ankh,

I give you credit for trying to convey the LOO principles w/o all the extra window dressings.

As you say.

Quote:I have tried to share this philosophy, which is one among others, with others, and discovered that people are not so much interested in cosmology or our journey through this Octave, i.e. spiritual evolution, but more about things like: is L/L Research a sect? And how did your God Ra contact you? Did *he* build the pyramids? etc.  But then who knows, maybe some gems of philosophy did stick with them without their immediate conscious awareness.

Hopefully, as the 4D vibes increasingly entrain and resonate this will make it easier to share.
-----------------------
Thanks Nicholas and Gary for sharing this. I might come across as sounding a little harsh 

with my comments -- like those uppity college professors that I don't care for. But I think my critique is fairly mild and totally open to counter comments. I get less harsh towards the end, at least I think.

Btw, I am working on a script approach of What is Ra's LOO? and have as my characters the 
three students who are each 22 yr old grad students who are also of the 3D/4D graduation.

Julie -- a dual major in Psychology and Philosophy with focus on Ethics
Dave -- a dual major in Physics and Philosophy with focus on Epistemology
Danielle -- a dual major in Comparative Religion and Philosophy with focus on Metaphysics

That's a start -- and on to some, at times, hasty comments to Gary's monogram.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:Ra called themselves messengers. Messengers of the Law of One. Their message was 
about the ultimate nature of things, which is another way to say, a message about who and 
what you are.

ultimate nature of things -- metaphysics
who and what you are. -- ethics and ethical being?

Quote:About the ultimate nature of things: they said that it, the Law of One, could not be put into 
words. Only approximated by words. But Ra nevertheless utilized words and concepts. 
The words and concepts they chose to approximate the ultimate nature of things include:
Perfect. Whole. Complete. 

Perfect. Whole. Complete. are basically synonymous of wholeness or oneness -- I would replace 
"perfect" with "beautiful".

Quote:They said that: All is well. Nothing is lost. All is One. All is unified. Infinite. Eternal

They have a 6D bias -- All is well in what sense? All is as it should be or ought to be? A normative "follow the criteria and rules" theory? All is One? -- quotes? IIRC, Ra says this once in a nondescript and vague way -- do a phrase search of RM. All is unified? The AO part (Infinity is Unity) of the AOP = AO + OA is indirectly in session 1 -- but the OA part is explicit.

Quote:So what do the words and concepts represent? What is their function? Indeed, what is the 
cosmology itself? In one word, it all constitutes a map. 

By cosmology you are referring to the metaphysical version of cosmology and not the astrophysical. See thread about Cosmology of the IUP/LOO.

A map, a system, a blueprint, an architecture, an algorithm, -- all are pre-designed?
Maps have a starting point and ending point -- they show how to get from one point to the next -- a "how to" methodology to reach the destination of fusion with the Creator. Is the map static or dynamic? Can it evolve and change via morphogenesis theory? Is the Creator static?  

Quote:Ra’s cosmology is not the terrain itself, it is only a map. And, it is important to note, one map among many many other maps. 

What exactly is Ra's cosmology? And hopefully there are not too many cosmologies -- only a finite many -- otherwise an infinite many conveys absolute pluralism and diversity.

Quote:It is the seeker who must exercise their discernment, find a map or three that works for 
them, and then USE the map to discover, walk and navigate the actual terrain for themselves. The seeker must test the map against their own experience, and indeed form their own map.

What examples of a couple maps that apparently differ greatly but reach the same end? 

What is the LOO? Is it anything you want it to be? (snarky free willist!)

Quote:Some maps are better than others, of course, and some maps suit different temperaments 
better than others. This is why each seeker is drawn to different philosophies, religions, and worldviews, and there will probably never be a one-size-fits-all, in third density at least.

Good point. And illustrates the existence and purpose of evolution.

Quote:Now, about Ra’s particular map, we received a call to the show last week from a seeker who takes issue with certain aspects of that map. Including Ra’s use of the word “perfect” to describe the ultimate nature of things. This seeker felt the word shouldn’t be used because, in his mind, a seemingly evolving and changing illusion that seems to make so-called “improvements” is not, by definition, “perfect.”

Philosophical vs psychological perfection -- parent to entitled child "you are perfect" -- being a delusional person with rose-colored glasses, "everything is perfect!" -- an obsessive-compulsive clean-freak who is neurotic and who washes his hands 50 times a day due to fear of "uncleanliness and imperfection"  Cleanliness is next to Godliness? I'm pro-beauty and anti-perfect.

Quote:This is where I would like to address paradox.
What is the greatest paradox? The paradox of the One and the Many. How are things 
simultaneously both One and Many? 

Quantitatively or qualitatively?

Examples of things that are "one and many" -- one infinite set of numbers (1, 2, 3, ....) -- 
one system with many interconnected parts (ecosystem) - one hologram with many sub-holograms -- Leibniz refers to one Mirror Monad with many mirror sub-monads

Quote:Ra says that all is ultimately one, yet every conceivable piece of data that assaults our senses tells us precisely the opposite.

 
To be direct -- "You are everything" means "One is All" -- LOO veterans please respond to
the Ra's Fundamental Postulates thread. "All is ultimately one?" the Ra goup does not say this -- we put words in their mouth -- please cite quotes where they say "all is one" -- there is one nondescript and muddled quote from the Ra Material that I found. Sorry to sound harsh.

Less harshly, consider all the Monisms in philosophy ie substance monism "all is of one 
substance" or priority monism "all is a part of a whole" as is all points of a circle whereby the existence and essence of the circle is prior to its points.

Quote:In the exploration of this paradox, one can amass infinite quantities of data to show and 
explain how things are NOT one. Indeed, one can do that with all of the fundamental 
descriptions about reality.

Again, many types of monisms that address this. Check wikipedia article on Monism.

In astrophysics cosmology we can also consider an all-inclusive "one as many" -- for example, there is ONE unique multiverse of infinitely many sub-universes, according to one popular view among cosmologists. 

Quote:The seeker can look at the illusion and say that things are obviously fragmented, partial, and divisible. Clearly it is not, to use one of Ra’s words, “whole”.

You ARE being rhetorical here -- I get it -- but just for fun, here's a rhetorical flourish that I couldn't pass up.

Clearly it is not whole? Are you now a Oneness Denier? So the the "Perfect. Whole. Complete" is a sham? Hatonn says they see the universe in a blade of grass or a grain of sand. 

Quote:The seeker can gaze at the physical realm and see that, obviously, things are always in a 
state of becoming, and growing, rising and falling – how could this ongoing, ever changing 
process be already, to use another of Ra’s words, “complete”?

Complete as in a complete potential/actual dynamic?

Watch Mark Thorsby's YT videos in his Philosophical Techne that address:
Parmenidean Monism -- Static Existence Monism -- unchanging wholeness
Heraclitian Monism -- Dynamic Dialectic Monism -- constant changing wholeness

Quote:The same seeker can look at the human state of affairs on this planet and reliably conclude that things are obviously not, to use another of Ra’s words, “well.”

Well implies whole -- well-being means wholeness of being -- "I feel well" means "I feel whole"  -- the wholistic healing principle

So when Ra says "all is well" they really mean that, philosophically, "all is whole" and not, 
psychologically and ethically, "all is good" because comforting an abused child by saying "all is well" is an obvious non sequiter or absurdity (or perhaps not philosophically & spiritually?)

Quote:And again the seeker can look at everything they know about life itself and determine that 
there is obviously space, and obviously time. Therefore, that seeker might conclude, the true nature of things is obviously not infinite or eternal.

 
Are you referring to material things like a rock or to Platonic Form objects like "eternal rockness"? When you say "true nature" you are suggesting the Platonic essence of things.

Quote:Such a seeker can paint the most convincing picture that the mystical truth of unity is a fancy idea and nothing more. Indeed, such is the design of the veiled third-density existence: to absolutely convince the entity of the reality of an individual self in a finite work of manyness.

Recall that the 3D Venusians were much less veiled than Terrans and they accessed this mystical unity with relative ease. So there's a spectrum ranging from low-level veiling to high-level veiling -- perhaps a range of 10% to 90% of thickness of veiling. 

Quote:Yet, Ra says not that one fine day things will be complete, or whole, or perfect; or that 
eventually the universe will be one; but rather Ra says that things are already whole, complete, perfect, and one. 

This is the static Parmenidean Oneness which the Heraclitian Oneness disputes and which 
you dispute to some extent above -- or at least it sounds like you do. Again, LOO veterans are welcomed to make posts in the What is Ra's Monism thread which addresses this in terms of a Metamonism model which allows for a natural evolving sequence of monisms.

Quote:No matter how things may seem to appear to our vision; no matter at what point we find our attention in the circuit of densities and octaves. This is the heart of paradox. We have truths 
that seem completely contradictory to one another that cannot possibly mutually co-exist, 
yet they do.

What "truths" are you referring? What examples? Truths of good and evil?
Maybe you are referring to the Tao Symbol and principle as a unified duality or unified bi-polarity which is a dynamic unity of "complementary opposites".

Quote:Now, were Ra the sole voice in all of human history promulgating the position of a unified, 
love-and-light-filled, perfect reality, one might be less inclined to give Ra ear. 
BUT the amazing thing is that the mystical core of the Law of One’s message has been with us on this planet in every age and from the most diverse corners of the globe – in all manner of religious, cultural, and historical backgrounds – in the form of the perennial philosophy.

I still think the Ra group's version of the LOO is incomplete when it excludes "will" in the "love & light" mantra  -- and I've mentioned this is b/c they are in "mission mode" and biased to STO to only promote "love and light" while knowing that "will, love and light" would suggest the legitimacy of STS. 

And that's not their mission, esp the Ra group who, as "wise and loving" 6D were "naive" to push the LOO on the Egyptian elites, who were prone to distort this message from the 7 foot tall golden beings of the Ra group. That was a major no-no and the Council of Nine own some of this responsibility. Dumb 7D fools!

Instead of the Ra group, why not allow a 4D group ie Hatonn to visit the Egyptians and just promote the much simpler "Law of Love" which is the sole requirement to evolve to 4D?

Quote:There have been those third-density entities who have awakened to the ultimate nature of 
things from a multiplicity of starting points. And what do all these proponents of the 
perennial philosophy say?

 
By "perennial philosophy" what are you referring, and of what interpretation are you using, 
since there are, in your words about the LOO, many many interpretations.

Quote:Each one who awakens has the same basic report to offer: there is only right now; reality 
is infinite; it is ineffable and beyond the reach of our words, but if we are to employ these 
poor tools, then words such as “perfect, whole, and complete” are among the best we have 
to point to the actual nature of the situation.

In panentheism there is both immanence of the Creator (effable) and transcendence of the 
Creator (ineffable) -- looking at a blade of grass and looking up at the vast infinite night sky. 

Words are "sound vibrational complexes" and symbols are "image vibrational complexes", 
so they are "vibrational complexes" that resonate to some extent with our MBS "vibrational 
complex". They have mythos-topos-logos complex qualities.

Quote:This is really the situation: ALL who have truly seen and experienced unanimously say to us from the seeming other shore that there is only ever-ending perfection, no matter what seems to be happening on the surface.

Instead of "perfection" why not say "beauty"?  It's less neurotic and more natural of a poet or artist or musician. The song "Everything is Beautiful" from the 1970's has great imagery in its lyrics. Also, from that time the song "To Every Thing Turn Turn" or 3 Dog Night's "Black and White" or Cat Stevens "Peace Train", etc

Quote:But genuine spirituality isn’t about taking the mapmakers at their word. (Though their 
consistency and consensus across the ages does, in my mind, lend veracity to their report.) Rather, genuine spirituality is about using the map and discovering the truth for yourself through the laboratory of the incarnation, and through the portal of your own experience.

Good point that there is some free will and creativity to designing and following one's map.
What you seem to refer to is the map of non-duality, subjectivism and existentialism ie John Lilly's explorations in "The Center of the Cyclone" where he has many ET encounters and becomes part of a "vast membrane of consciousness" which can leave one "spaced out" when back in consensus reality on the Earth.

Quote:Some of Ra’s claims we cannot verify—say regarding whether the asteroid belt was once a planet that blew itself to smithereens.

 
In Uranus and Neptune thread I support the Ra group's claim as most likely valid. Moreso than the Wilcockian version of Phaeton. Not to knock him too much, David has done some good ancient astronaunt research.

Quote:But we are in a position to discover and verify whether reality is indeed unified, whole, 
complete, and perfect. Indeed, we are in that position because WE are the reality, WE are 
the truth, we are already whole, complete, and perfect. But nobody can tell you that. You 
must find out for yourself.

Again, the Metamonism model and the completeness of AOP = AO + OA (Taoism) allows this.

Quote:So while there is value in parsing out the meanings of words—because our beliefs about 
reality have an enormous influence on the paths that we create—in the end we have to use 
the words about reality only as metaphorical signs pointing to the ocean, and then, through 
will and faith alone, make our own way to the ocean.

 
from an old Barney Miller TV episode
Actor: "These are mere words -- I act out the words with my actions and feelings"
Producer: "We pay you to say the words that the writer worked so damn hard to provide --- so SAY them!"

I agree there is the less effective descriptive and verbal transmission and processing of knowledge, and there's the more effective prescriptive and experiential learning process 
which should be part of a 3D/4D education for all ages. See Research and Development thread in Corkboard.

Quote:No sign can ever give us the actual experience of the ocean. We must dive into that mystery ourselves in order to know.

  
John Lilly agrees. Franklin Merrel-Wolff agrees. Timothy Leary agrees. Bertrand Russell agrees. Ya gotta embody the knowledge via experience.

-  GLB and cast of millions!

Gary, please take my snark with a grain of salt. "It's ALL good" as they say in the 'hood!

But thanks for kick starting this thread and I hope to take on the 3 grads with their truth-digging questions in the near future.