The idea of this thread is to provide Law of One students with historical sources reflecting the teachings of Ra. So feel free to provide similar material from your own findings. When I first read the LOO books, I did look for this kind of information and stumbled upon the work of Fenelon. He was a French archbishop from the 17th and early 18th centuries who was also a famous theologian of his time. One of his book is a metaphysical treatise called
The Existence of God, published in 1712, where he provides an overview of arguments for and against the existence of a Creator.
Some of the writings from this book are amazingly similar to the teachings of Ra. Unfortunately most of them are found in the second part, published in French in 1718 after Fenelon's death and not available in English on the Internet (at least I did not find it). However here is an excerpt from the first part on the idea of Unity which will sound quite familiar:
Quote:The Idea of the Unity proves that there are Immaterial Substances; and that there is a Being Perfectly One, who is God.
As for units, some perhaps will say that I do not know them by the bodies, but only by the spirits; and, therefore, that my mind being one, and truly known to me, it is by it, and not by the bodies, I have the idea of unity. But to this I answer.
It will, at least, follow from thence that I know substances that have no manner of extension or divisibility, and which are present. Here are already beings purely incorporeal, in the number of which I ought to place my soul. Now, who is it that has united it to my body? This soul of mine is not an infinite being; it has not been always, and it thinks within certain bounds. Now, again, who makes it know bodies so different from it? Who gives it so great a command over a certain body; and who gives reciprocally to that body so great a command over the soul? Moreover, which way do I know whether this thinking soul is really one, or whether it has parts? I do not see this soul. Now, will anybody say that it is in so invisible, and so impenetrable, a thing that I clearly see what unity is? I am so far from learning by my soul what the being One is, that, on the contrary, it is by the clear idea I have already of unity that I examine whether my soul be one or divisible.
Add to this, that I have within me a clear idea of a perfect unity, which is far above that I may find in my soul. The latter is often conscious that she is divided between two contrary opinions, inclinations, and habits. Now, does not this division, which I find within myself, show and denote a kind of multiplicity and composition of parts? Besides, the soul has, at least, a successive composition of thoughts, one of which is most different and distinct from another. I conceive an unity infinitely more One, if I may so speak. I conceive a Being who never changes His thoughts, who always thinks all things at once, and in which no composition, even successive, can be found. Undoubtedly it is the idea of the perfect and supreme unity that makes me so inquisitive after some unity in spirits, and even in bodies. This idea, ever present within me, is innate or inborn with me; it is the perfect model by which I seek everywhere some imperfect copy of the unity. This idea of what is one, simple, and indivisible by excellence can be no other than the idea of God. I, therefore, know God with such clearness and evidence, that it is by knowing Him I seek in all creatures, and in myself, some image and likeness of His unity. The bodies have, as it were, some mark or print of that unity, which still flies away in the division of its parts; and the spirits have a greater likeness of it, although they have a successive composition of thoughts.
Nice find, thank you for sharing. Having a very difficult time understanding that language.
I scrolled to some random pages in the book and it's very interesting to read.
Clement of Alexandria (150-215):
"Nor are any parts to be predicated of him. For the One is indivisible."
(The Oneness and Simplicity of God by Barry D. Smith)
Plotinus (204-270):
"Even in calling it The First we mean no more than to express that it is the most absolutely simplex: it is Self-Sufficing only in the sense that it is not of that compound nature which would make it dependent upon any constituent; it is the Self-Contained because everything contained in something alien must also exist by that alien."
(Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Divine Simplicity)
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (5th–6th century AD) in his work
Divine names (emphasis added):
Quote:Now let us, if thou art willing, proceed to the most important Title of all. For the Divine Science attributes all qualities to the Creator of all things and attributes them all together, and speaks of Him as One. How such a Being is Perfect: not only in the sense that It is Absolute Perfection and possesseth in Itself and from Itself distinctive Uniformity of Its existence, and that It is wholly perfect in Its whole Essence, but also in the sense that, in Its transcendence It is beyond Perfection; and that, while giving definite form or limit to all that is indefinite, It is yet in Its simple Unity raised above all limitation, and is not contained or comprehended by anything, but penetrates to all things at once and beyond them in Its unfailing bounties and never-ending activities. Moreover, the Title “Perfect” means that It cannot be increased (being always Perfect) and cannot be diminished, and that It contains all things beforehand in Itself and overflows in one ceaseless, identical, abundant and inexhaustible supple, whereby It perfects all perfect things and fills them with Its own Perfection.
And the title “One” implies that It is all things under the form of Unity through the Transcendence of Its single Oneness, and is the Cause of all things without departing from that Unity. For there is nothing in the world without a share in the One; and, just as all number participates in unity (and we speak of one couple, one dozen, one half, one third, or one tenth) even so everything and each part of everything participates in the One, and on the existence of the One all other existences are based, and the One Cause of all things is not one of the many things in the world, but is before all Unity and Multiplicity and gives to all Unity and Multiplicity their definite bounds. For no multiplicity can exist except by some participation in the One: that which is many in its parts is one in its entirety; that which is many in its accidental qualities is one in its substance; that which is many in number or faculties is one in species; that which is many in its emanating activities is one in its originating essence. There is naught in the world without some participation in the One, the Which in Its all-embracing Unity contains beforehand all things, and all things conjointly, combining even opposites under the form of oneness. And without the One there can be no Multiplicity; yet contrariwise the One can exist without the Multiplicity just as the Unit exists before all multiplied Number. And if all things be conceived as being ultimately unified with each other, then all things taken as a whole are One.
Yes the concept of Oneness is central in the works of neoplatonists such as Plotinus or Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, the last one also being a Christian by faith.
Quote:REALIZATION OF UNITY
All that lives is really one, and it is the duty of those who enter the Brotherhood to know that as a fact. We are taught that the Self is one, and we try to understand what that means; but it is quite a different thing when we see it for ourselves, as the candidate does when he enters the buddhic plane. It is as if in physical life we were each living at the bottom of a well, from which we may look up at the sunlight in the world above; and just as the light shines down into the depth of many wells, and yet ever remains the one light, so does the Light of the One illumine the darkness of our hearts. The Initiate has climbed out of the well of the personality, and sees that the light which he thought to be himself is in very truth the Infinite Light of all.
While living in the causal body, the ego already acknowledged the Divine Consciousness in all; when he looked upon another ego his consciousness leapt up as it were to recognize the Divine in him. But on the buddhic plane it no longer leaps to greet him from without, for it is already enshrined within his heart. He is that consciousness and it is his. There is no longer the “you” and the “I,” for both are one-- facets of something that transcends and yet includes them both.
Yet in all this strange advance there is no loss of the sense of individuality, even though there is an utter loss of the sense of separateness. That seems a paradox, while yet it is obviously true. The man remembers all that lies behind him. He is himself, the same man who did this action or that in the far-off past. He is in no way changed, except that now he is much more than he was then, and feels that he includes within himself many other manifestations as well. If here and now a hundred of us could simultaneously raise our consciousness into the intuitional world, we should all be one consciousness, but to each man that would seem to be his own, absolutely unchanged, except that now it included all the others as well.
To each it would seem that it was he who had absorbed or included all those others, so we are here manifestly in the presence of a kind of illusion, and a little further realization makes it clear to us that we are all facets of a greater consciousness, and that what we have hitherto thought to be our qualities, our intellect, our energies have all the time been His qualities, His intellect, His energy. We have arrived at the realization in actual fact of the time-honoured formula : “Thou art That.” It is one thing to talk about this down here and to grasp it, or to think that we grasp it, intellectually; but it is quite another to enter into that marvellous world and know it with a certainty that can never again be shaken.
When this buddhic consciousness fully impresses the physical brain, it gives a new value to all the actions and relations of life. We no longer look upon a person or object, no matter with what degree of kindliness or sympathy; we simply are that person or object, and we know him or it as we know the thought of our own brain or the movement of our own hand. We appreciate his motives as our own motives, even though we may perfectly understand that another part of ourselves, possessing more knowledge or a different view-point, might act quite differently.
Yet it must not be supposed that when a man enters upon the lowest sub-division of the intuitional world he at once becomes fully conscious of his unity with all that lives. That perfection of sense comes only as the result of much toil and trouble, when he has reached the highest sub-division of this realm of unity. To enter that plane at all is to experience an enormous extension of consciousness, to realize himself as one with many others; but before him there opens a time of effort, of self-development, analogous at that level to what we do down here when by meditation we try to open our consciousness to the plane next above us. Step by step, sub-plane by sub-plane, the aspirant must win his way; for even at that level exertion is still necessary if progress is to be made.
Having passed the first Initiation and consciously entered the buddhic plane, this work of developing himself on sub-plane after sub-plane now lies before the candidate, in order that he may get rid of the three great fetters, as they are technically called, which embarrass his further progress. He is now definitely on the Path of Holiness, and is described in the Buddhist system as the Sotapatti or Sohan, “he who has entered the stream”; while among the Hindus he is called the Parivrajaka, which means “the wanderer,” one who no longer feels that any place in the three lower worlds is his abiding-place of refuge.
Source: Book "The Masters And The Path" by C. W. Leadbeater (written in 1925).
Meister Eckhart (1260-1328):
Quote:God is one (Deus unus est).... God is infinite in His simplicity and simple in His infinity. Therefore He is everywhere and is everywhere complete. He is everywhere on account of His infinity, and is everywhere complete on account of His simplicity. Only God flows into all things, their very essences. Nothing else flows into something else. God is in the innermost part of each and every thing, only in its innermost part, and He alone is One.... All things are contained in the One, by virtue of the fact that it is one, for all multiplicity is one, and is one thing, and is in and through the One…. God unites things with Himself only because He is one and only in so far as He is one. Indeed, He must unite all things, uniting them with and in Himself on the grounds that He is Himself One.... The One is not distinct from all things. Therefore all things and the fullness of being are in the One by virtue of its indistinction and unity.... The One descends into everything and into each single things, yet remaining the One that unites what is distinct. That is why six is not twice three but six times one.... God, the One, is.... He is the Being of all beings. (LW 29)
The Light of Egypt by Thomas Burgoyne
The Book of Law by Aliester Crowley and Rose Crowley channeling Aiwass through a few different named aspects of itself.The
Kabbalistic texts are all representative of the Law of One as well Zohar, Bahir, Sefer Yetzira.
Gita (1st or 2nd century):
Quote:He who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me is never lost to Me, nor do I become lost to him. He who is established in oneness and worships Me abiding in all beings, that yogi lives in Me, whatever his mode of living may be. That yogi, Oh Arjuna, is regarded as the supreme, who judges pleasure or pain everywhere by the same standard that he applies to himself. (6:30)
I think this is the oldest text (app. 9th-6th century BCE) - Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad:
Quote:The Ātman (Absolute Self) alone is to be meditated upon, for in It all are one… By It one knows all this…. Whoever knows thus, 'I am Brahman/Reality' becomes this all. Even the gods cannot prevent his becoming thus, for he becomes their Self…. This Divine Self is a world for all beings—gods, seers, ancestors, humans, livestock, and tinier creatures…. All the vital breaths/energies, all worlds, all gods, and all beings spring from this Ātman. Its inner meaning (upaniṣad) is 'the Real behind the real, or Truth of truth.'… When there is some other thing, then one can see the other, smell… taste… greet… hear… ponder… touch… perceive the other. [But in Self-realization] one becomes the single ocean, the nondual Seer. This is the Brahman Reality…. This is the highest goal, the highest treasure, the highest world, the greatest bliss…. A verse says: 'When all desires dwelling in the heart are banished, then a mortal becomes immortal; he becomes Brahman here (in this life).'… Knowing that immortal Brahman, I am immortal. Those who know the life behind breathing, the eye behind seeing, the ear behind hearing, the mind behind thinking, have realized the ancient, primordial Brahman. With the (intuitive) mind alone must one realize It. In It there's no diversity; one goes from death to death seeing diversity in It. This un-showable, constant Being can be realized as One only. The Self is taintless, beyond space, unborn, vast, and immovable. Let a wise aspirant directly realize this insight, not just reflect on tiresome words.
(06-08-2018, 09:03 PM)kenney Wrote: [ -> ]The Light of Egypt by Thomas Burgoyne
The Book of Law by Aliester Crowley and Rose Crowley channeling Aiwass through a few different named aspects of itself.The
Kabbalistic texts are all representative of the Law of One as well Zohar, Bahir, Sefer Yetzira.
I don’t trust the Book of the Law... but certainly the Kabbalah is in alignment with the Law of One.
“All is One” is shown on the Tree of Life. Ein Soph focuses a point in the Limitless Light which becomes Kether and the Emenations commence. Ein Soph is intelligent infinity. Ein Soph Aur is intelligent energy.
Infinity (Ayin- Nothingness) is an undifferentiated Unity. Just as Ra describes.
So in my opinion the Law of One and the Kabbalah fit quite nicely together.
I can’t find the exact quote but I believe it was said by Ra, that “our message is ever and always the same, simply stated in different ways.” The teachings of the positive path are universal. There are many different ways to speak of the Creator. As can be seen on our planet with the various religions. Religion being the cultural lenses through which we view the Creator. So, one will find a resonant and consistent theme across all true positive spiritual traditions. Not everyone is attracted to the same “way” though. So we gotta figure out what works best for us. What helps us along the path, what helps us grow and become. For me it might the Qabalah but for another it may Tibetan Buddhism. Both paths are capable of leading one to Source, to complete and perfect enlightenment, reunification with the One.
I wouldn't suggest one to "trust" anything. No single work is an unflawed description of what reality is and how to deal with it, not even the Ra books, not Hebrew traditions, none of it. As one studies Crowley they will find he even doubted some aspects of liber Al. Crowley was a high master of Kabbalah and his thoughts on his own works are enlightening genius.
Emanuel Swedenborg, Jacob Boehme, Dionysius Freher, Robert Fludd, were all describing the Law of One as well, steeped deeply in Christianity which many would distrust as much as others would distrust channeled material. i have to suggest not to throw the baby out with the bath water because it's the water that is dirty.
(06-09-2018, 10:24 PM)kenney Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't suggest one to "trust" anything. No single work is an unflawed description of what reality is and how to deal with it, not even the Ra books, not Hebrew traditions, none of it. As one studies Crowley they will find he even doubted some aspects of liber Al. Crowley was a high master of Kabbalah and his thoughts on his own works are enlightening genius.
Emanuel Swedenborg, Jacob Boehme, Dionysius Freher, Robert Fludd, were all describing the Law of One as well, steeped deeply in Christianity which many would distrust as much as others would distrust channeled material. i have to suggest not to throw the baby out with the bath water because it's the water that is dirty.
I’ve read it and looked at it. It’s not a blind mistrust of the book. It’s a mistrust on reading the book and interpreting its symbolism. Crowley was a master of Qabalah and High Magick, yes indeed. His confusion in polarity can be found in Liber AL and his subsequent works. The Book of Thoth’s symbolism was formed on the basis of Liber AL. The Book of Thoth (the actual book not the tarot deck) can be helpful in interpreting the suits and court cards. Not too helpful with the major arcana, in my opinion, because they were redrawn to accord with the Book of the Law. See Atu VI. Lust and it’s interpretation.
I’ve said this elsewhere on the forum before: useful information can be gleaned from Crowley but one needs to be careful and discerning as there is service to self information mixed in with true teachings.
I personally think Aiwass is a negative entity. Should we listen to negative entities because sometimes they might give us truth? Or do we want to wisely choose our teachers and learn from those who are commited on the path that we are seeking on?
I used to think highly of Crowley. I have since stopped reading him and working with most his material. (777 being an obvious exception). Why? Because I found better and purer sources. No one is “throwing the baby out with the bath water” here.
Thanks for reaffirming i wasn't too crazy. I used to think that Aiwass was just his wife stoned on hash talking in the dark. All the same since useful information can be gleaned from it, it is useful, regardless. it is indicative of the Law of One as expressed in all forms at all times. It is skewed and twisted to the minds of the channel and or authors. Whether any work is positive or negative is a subjective and relative opinion based upon ones own experience and conditioning. I personally do not care for it, and I am rather sorry I brought it up for it appears to have become a distraction.
To me the Law of One is just one simple sentence, and I think we all must enjoy playing games or something. How many books can one read before they have understood that "all is one?" All these other interesting things in the Ra books, Seth, the bible, Gurdjieff, Astrology, Kabbalah, Tarot, Theosophy etc. etc. and so forth are more like "laws of separation" or "the way things fallout due to polarity in the physical universe."
since all is one isn't every darn book ever written with honesty by the author about "philosophy" and "understanding of one's self and the world around one's self" a book that is written in the vein of the Law of One? aren't the books written by negative entities also expressing the Law of One from their point of view?
I look at my book shelf and I could grab well over fifty books that all repeat things stated in the Ra books as the Law of One. Some are trash in my opinion and need to picked through. Once again I am sorry I picked one you do not trust. It is my opinion that when you smell a rat you start to search for it, and to read a book like this or perhaps the Bible is often the force impetuous needed to send one down the path of self awareness.
John Scottus Eriugena (815-875) - a medieval theologian, philosopher and poet:
Quote:In God, there can be no duality; beginning and end have no temporal reality but are simultaneous and can, therefore, be reduced to a unity.
(Periphyseon)
Bayazid Bastami (804-874) - a Persian sufi:
Quote:‘I and Thee’ signifies duality, and duality is an illusion, for Unity alone is Truth. When the ego is gone, God is His own mirror in me.”
I have come across a group called The Marvelous Work and A Wonder. They claim to be a group consisting of 4 anonymous humans who have brought in a spokesperson as their 5th. They speak of many things which Ra spoke of, which no normal human would have any way of knowing. Their teachings are of a different style but overall the same as Ra's. I think their reason for bringing in a spokesperson is to enable them to sound normal to those in 3rd density. The anonymous members claim to have been a part of this Earth experience since the beginning of this cycle. They call it the 1st dispensation. Ra said that there are 6th density wanderers who have been on Earth since the beginning of the cycle. I believe that this group is of positive polarity and is here to help with the harvest. They claim that it is their assignment to help as many people of the world as possible out of the chains of ignorance so that they can better understand the true nature of humanity and why we are here on Earth. They teach using extremely simple versions of complicated material such as the higher self and what consists of the mind/body/spirit complex. They also have started a political party called the Humanity Party which desires to unite the entire Earth under one powerful government that exists only to serve the people of the world. It has plans to provide the basic necessities of life for all human beings on Earth free of charge so that no human is ever forced to be a slave to another.
I found them before I found the Ra material and I was absolutely blown away by the similarities. marvelousworkandawonder.com and humanityparty.com
Evagrius Ponticus (345-399) - a Christian monk and ascetic:
Quote:121. Blessed is the monk who regards every man as God after God.
122. Blessed is the monk who looks with great joy on everyone's salvation and progress as if they were his own.
123. Blessed is the monk who regards himself as 'the off-scouring of all things' (1 Cor. 4:13).
124. A monk is one who is separated from all and united with all.
125. A monk is one who regards himself as linked with every man, through always seeing himself in each.
(On Prayer)
About universal love (agape):
Quote:This is true even among thieves and robbers. As he loves only his own family and not other families, the thief steals from other families to profit his own family. As he loves only his own person and not others, the robber does violence to others to profit himself.
And the reason for all this is want of love. This again is true in the mutual disturbance among the houses of the ministers and the mutual invasions among the states of the feudal lords. As he loves only his own house and not the others, the minister disturbs the other houses to profit his own. As he loves only his own state and not the others, the feudal lord attacks the other states to profit his own. These instances exhaust the confusion in the world. And when we look into the causes we find they all arise from want of mutual love.
Mo Tzu (470-391 BCE)
Quote: The supreme Self is neither born nor dies. He cannot be burned, moved, pierced, cut, nor dried. Beyond all attributes, the supreme Self Is the eternal witness, ever pure. Indivisible, and uncompounded, Far beyond the senses and the ego. In him conflicts and expectations cease.
the Four minor Upanishads, Atma III