Is it possible that the Law of One may not be true?
Is there a way to know what happens in the cosmos, and what happens after death?
There are Life after Life books that say the afterlife is pretty good.
But we always seem to want to come back into incarnation.
That is if reincarnation is true.
Maybe the atheists are true and there's no afterlife.
How can we know?
And does it matter?
Should we live our lives so that we have a good afterlife, if there is one?
And is it certain that there is a harvest and densities are real?
What do you feel intuitively Wolf ?
I so much feel intuitively love for the LOO...
It just feels so good to read and re-read it.
And then you have all those crossings-over from other spiritual texts....
(05-04-2019, 06:38 PM)flofrog Wrote: [ -> ]What do you feel intuitively Wolf ?
I feel that whatever we believe is what we will experience, at least temporarily until the true afterlife is presented.
So some may experience hell in the afterlife, but that is only temporary.
I don't know how atheists could experience oblivion since you aren't conscious of that, and it will pass fast subjectively.
I can only hope that the Law of One is mostly true.
I am trying to find a video my friend found that discredits the Law of One, just for a comparison purpose.
When I find that, I will post here for others' feedback, because I want to be convinced that LOO is accurate and true.
The Ra Material beats the Christian dogma I used to follow hands down. It says that nothing is to be overcome,
where the church told us to deny ourselves. And if we didn't do that, we better beg God for forgiveness.
(05-04-2019, 06:19 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]Is it possible that the Law of One may not be true?
Is there a way to know what happens in the cosmos, and what happens after death?
There are Life after Life books that say the afterlife is pretty good.
But we always seem to want to come back into incarnation.
That is if reincarnation is true.
Maybe the atheists are true and there's no afterlife.
How can we know?
And does it matter?
Should we live our lives so that we have a good afterlife, if there is one?
And is it certain that there is a harvest and densities are real?
I sense lots of fear of making a mistake in these and many other of your questions.
Who is afraid? Who is asking? And who is watching it happening?
(05-05-2019, 03:38 AM)zvonimir Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2019, 06:19 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]Is it possible that the Law of One may not be true?
"I" and "universe" are one, you ask, "So what? What is the next step, the practical application?" living in the present, Law of One i consider a guidepost just as many other sources of similar information...the more value your put on Law of One or any other source the more power you giive them over your oneself...
Is there a way to know what happens in the cosmos, and what happens after death?
you don't die because you were never born. You had just forgotten who you are.
There are Life after Life books that say the afterlife is pretty good.
All winners need losers; all saints need sinners; all sages need fools— that is, so long as the major kick in life is to "amount to something" or to "be someone" as a particular and separate godlet.
But we always seem to want to come back into incarnation.
That is if reincarnation is true.
In recent years, evidence has been collected and documented which confirms that rebirth is a fact. There have been cases of people who have been able to recollect their experience of previous lives. Their description of places and persons of the past were confirmed after thorough investigations.
The best known example of this is the case of Bridey Murphy. A Mrs. Ruth Simmons of the United States recollected a previous life in Ireland, more than 100 years ago. She said she had been Bridey Murphy in the year 1789 and gave full details of Bridey's life. The details were later checked and found to be quite accurate, although in her present life, Mrs. Simmons had never been outside America.
In another case in England, a woman called Mrs. Naomi Henry recollected two previous lives. In the first instance, she recalled her life as an Irishwoman living in a village called Greenhalgh in the seventeenth century. Research into her case was carried out which revealed that such a village did exist then. In the second instance, she remembered that in one of her previous lives, she was an Englishwoman who became a nurse to several children in an English town called Downham in 1902. A search into the official records kept in Downham proved that such a woman did exist.
Professor Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia, U.S.A., has researched and published his findings on more than twenty cases of rebirth. These cases, which have been well documented and verified, are from various countries including France, Italy, India, Sri Lanka and Burma.
the point is live in the present and to perhaps seek a way of life avoiding rebirth ......
Maybe the atheists are true and there's no afterlife.
But what are we to do? The alternatives seem to be two. The first is, somehow or other, to discover a new myth, or convincingly resuscitate an old one. If science cannot prove there is no God, we can try to live and act on the bare chance that he may exist after all. There seems to be nothing to lose in such a gamble, for if death is the end, we shall never know that we have lost.
How can we know?
The two forces or tendencies are mutually interdependent, and the game is a working game just so long as the angel is winning, but does not win, and the devil is losing, but is never lost. (The game doesn't work in reverse, just as the ocean doesn't work with wave-crests down and troughs up.)
And does it matter?
Should we live our lives so that we have a good afterlife, if there is one?
what is the good life,what is beauty, and what is pleasure ?
And is it certain that there is a harvest and densities are real?
hope this helps your quest for answers gemini .........
very interesting read....from another perspective. Thanks
Yes, I just cannot imagine not existing. I cannot even know or feel what that is like, if anything.
Let's put our cards on the table.
First, is there any evidence of life after death?
Yes. One example:
Synopsis of the video: Dr. Karl Osis, director of the ASPR (American Society of Psychic Research) demonstrates a laboratorial test, in which Alex Tanous, the famous astral projector, can identify a composite symbol inside a machine, put at several different positions, in a random sequence, with some rooms between Tanous and the machine. Note that you need spy exactly at the right point to see the symbol inside the machine, it is not possible see it from another position. This shows that is is note a “mind perception”, when the observer is not “point-located”. This scene appears at 1h 17' in the classic documentary by Rolf Olsen "Journey into the Beyond".
*********************
There are also many evidences of extraterrestrial intelligences visiting the Earth. For example, implants with material not found on the Earth:
*********************
Ok, this not proof 98% of Ra's words. But, as someone who have been studying the "fringe" knowledge on the last ten years, I can say that the Ra informations is similar to the ancient religions and mistery schools. Mainly on hinduism. I found on hinduism concepts very similar to which Ra calls contact and penetration with intelligent infinity. I discover also concepts very similar with densities. This is, cultures much different is talking about the same thing, and the concept of oneness is always on present. The only difference of material Ra is that it's more organized and deep.
However, there is only one way to confirm the Ra's words: seek in your inner.
(05-04-2019, 06:19 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]Is it possible that the Law of One may not be true?
...
Yes it's possible. But to me, TLoO is the only version of the "why" that makes complete sense. So I would say that if it's not true, then I don't really care what "truth" would replace it. Because without it, nothing makes sense and nothing has any real importance. Down here we choose what is true, for down here Truth is subjective, so I choose TLoO to be my Truth and I'm quite happy with the results thank you very much.
Patrick, can you explain what you mean by Truth being subjective? I thought it was objective. Like there are a lot of scientific facts that are Truth, and those are all objective. That means that they are the same to everyone. Like gravity. It's an objective truth.
(05-06-2019, 11:28 AM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]Patrick, can you explain what you mean by Truth being subjective? I thought it was objective. Like there are a lot of scientific facts that are Truth, and those are all objective. That means that they are the same to everyone. Like gravity. It's an objective truth.
I think the only truths are the Law of One and Infinity. The first three distortions are the intelligent manner in which it can manifest and everything under that is relative complex infinite diversity to mirror the first three distortions, which in turn reflect the true you.
So I found within myself that the Law of One is truth, that is, that in all corners of space and in all corners of time you are and that there is no end to this because the unity of yourself is the infinite. Then from there, you can see that most of the material touches transient things, or minor laws, that are there to abstract your awareness from your truer nature. As you journey to realize yourself as transcendant to these minor laws, you reach in awareness closer to yourself until even the first three distortions are transcended. Every Law is like a layer of resistance to yourself, every step of light is a release of this resistance to rejoin with what you truly are. From the finite crossing of thoughts, you rejoin with the infinite.
If all there is is One and in Unity, how could gravity be anything more than a convenient illusion?
(05-06-2019, 11:28 AM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]Patrick, can you explain what you mean by Truth being subjective?...
Objective Truth probably exists. BUT it's absolutely impossible for anyone incarnated in 3d to grasp it. For us down here, Truth is always subjective. I would guess that the Objective Truth can only be realized in the instant when we transition from 7d to 8d.
But really we just can't know anything at all for sure down here.
Quote:61.9 ▶ Questioner: This brings out the point of the purpose for the physical incarnation, I believe. And that is to reach a conviction through your own thought processes as to a solution to problems and understandings in a totally unbiased or totally free situation with no proof at all or anything that you would consider proof, proof being a very poor word in itself. Can you expand on my concept?
Ra: I am Ra. Your opinion is an eloquent one although somewhat confused in its connections between the freedom expressed by subjective knowing and the freedom expressed by subjective acceptance. There is a significant distinction between the two.
This is not a dimension of knowing, even subjectively, due to the lack of overview of cosmic and other inpourings which affect each and every situation which produces catalyst. The subjective acceptance of that which is at the moment and the finding of love within that moment is the greater freedom.
That known as the subjective knowing without proof is, in some degree, a poor friend for there will be anomalies no matter how much information is garnered due to the distortions which form third density.
This place is for us to learn faith. To learn to have faith that Love really is in all moments. It takes a great deal of faith and we can't have any proof. And our faith is tested all the time.
For me, the only thing that makes sense is LOVE. I have faith in LOVE and I do not want to lose it. So I don't question it, I just lose myself in it.
(05-06-2019, 11:28 AM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]...Like there are a lot of scientific facts that are Truth, and those are all objective. That means that they are the same to everyone. Like gravity. It's an objective truth.
There is no Objective Truth in science. This is very misunderstood by us. The only area of science that can try to approach objective truth is pure mathematics and even then !
Look at the work of Karl Popper regarding the scientific method. It is NOT about proving anything. Science test hypotheses in order to
disprove them. As long as an hypothesis survives, it remains valid and useful. It WILL be invalidated at some point and something more useful will replace it.
Even a wildly successful one like General Relativity is not the truth and scientists knows this. Something better (truer) will replace it and something else after that, etc...
A true scientist would never say something like: "X has been proven!". Instead you would hear: "There is very good evidence in support of X and all tests so far were unable to disprove it".
The goal of science is to prove that something is false. Even this endeavor can only be achieved subjectively IMHO.
Quote:Philosophy of arithmetic
Popper's principle of falsifiability runs into prima facie difficulties when the epistemological status of mathematics is considered. It is difficult to conceive how simple statements of arithmetic, such as "2 + 2 = 4", could ever be shown to be false. If they are not open to falsification they can not be scientific. If they are not scientific, it needs to be explained how they can be informative about real world objects and events.
Popper's solution[sup][43][/sup] was an original contribution in the philosophy of mathematics. His idea was that a number statement such as "2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples" can be taken in two senses. In one sense it is irrefutable and logically true, in the second sense it is factually true and falsifiable. Concisely, the pure mathematics "2 + 2 = 4" is always true, but, when the formula is applied to real-world apples, it is open to falsification.[sup][44][/sup]