I think it is important to note here that the Ra material is not the Law of One. It is the channeling of information of a group that professes the Law of One. Just as there are many other avenues to acquire teachings regarding the Law of One.
The Law of One is found in various cultures and ancient teachings and those who are aware of it and follow its guiding principles can be known as the Children of the Law of One.
However there are many who are aware of it, and know it, but who do not follow it and deliberately choose to be in opposition to it. Those would not be Children of the Law of One.
Whether one chooses to call extraterrestrial beings ETs or angels or gods does not mean that they are the sole harbingers of the truths revealed in the teachings of the Law of One. Jesus taught aspects of this Law as did the Johannites that followed after him. Gnosticism is based on many aspects of the Law of One. Lucifer and Sanat Kumara taught the Law of One. Those beings which first came to the earth could be called by many names and that which they brought with them would be teachings regarding the Law of One. Just because I may choose to call them archangels, and you might choose to call them Martians or Venusians, and yet others may call them gods, does not hinder the truth which they carried and passed down.
I didn't meant to reply to this thread at first, but since I'm here anyway ..
I agree with you. It's not the same thing. Ra simply transmitted their understanding of the Law of One in the Ra Material. Just as countless teachers have done through the ages and densities. Here's what they have to say on it themselves:
We hope to offer you a somewhat different slant upon the information which is always and ever the same.
Thanks for making that distinction.
Love to all
Understood. Actually, my dog has taught me the Law of One also.
The Law of One is the Law of One. All is One, One is All.
Simple as that. No point in making further distortions, especially not excluding ones.
Shin'Ar, you seem to know something about Lucifer that is not commonly known among most circles I have visited. Will you (perhaps in a different thread, perhaps privately if you like) tell the story of the entity we call "Lucifer"?
I agree, JustLikeYou!
Lucifer has been a common and popular theme around me of late, and I would absolutely love to have a different perspective on it, since I really don't know where I stand with the subject at current.
Perhaps I can take questions in a thread uner the olio forum
(02-25-2012, 06:01 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]Understood. Actually, my dog has taught me the Law of One also.
Good point.
That reminds me, there's actually a novel involving a talking dog who teaches the Law of One. It's pretty good!
http://www.amazon.com/Going-Deeper-Make-...0972395407
Love to all
I'm pretty sure that everyone is aware that the Ra material is not the only, first, last, or definitive dissemination of the Law of One. Just reading the Ra material will tell you this. In fact Ra only claims to discuss a particular distortion of the Law of One, and that is Service to Others.
However, the books were published under that title (except my copy of book 1 is called "The Ra Material," the others are all "Law of One"), so people on this forum sometimes refer to it as such. Whenever someone says "the Law of One" and refers to something within the Ra material, that is why.
You seem to have mistaken us as neophytes.
Such titles are relative, no?
It can be confusing when people refer to the Ra Material books as the 'Law of One'.
Dear Shin'Ar,
(02-25-2012, 05:09 PM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]I think it is important to note here that the Ra material is not the Law of One. It is the channeling of information of a group that professes the Law of One. Just as there are many other avenues to acquire teachings regarding the Law of One.
Ra: I am Ra. I can only request that if your discernment/understanding suggests the use of this vibratory sound complex, Ra, the phrase “An humble messenger of the Law of One” be appended.
Shin'Ar Wrote:The Law of One is found in various cultures and ancient teachings and those who are aware of it and follow its guiding principles can be known as the Children of the Law of One.
However there are many who are aware of it, and know it, but who do not follow it and deliberately choose to be in opposition to it. Those would not be Children of the Law of One.
Ra: The distortion lies in the effect that those who seek to serve the self are seen by the Law of One as precisely the same as those who seek to serve others, for are all not one? To serve yourself and to serve others is a dual method of saying the same thing, if you can understand the essence of the Law of One.
Ra: Since it [the Law of One] contains all, it [the Law of One] cannot abhor any.
Ra: 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.
Shin'Ar Wrote:Whether one chooses to call extraterrestrial beings ETs or angels or gods does not mean that they are the sole harbingers of the truths revealed in the teachings of the Law of One. Jesus taught aspects of this Law as did the Johannites that followed after him. Gnosticism is based on many aspects of the Law of One. Lucifer and Sanat Kumara taught the Law of One. Those beings which first came to the earth could be called by many names and that which they brought with them would be teachings regarding the Law of One. Just because I may choose to call them archangels, and you might choose to call them Martians or Venusians, and yet others may call them gods, does not hinder the truth which they carried and passed down.
Ra: Ra is not elite.
Ra: Ra is an humble messenger of the Law of One.
This is the Law of One, or the Ra material, that we study in this community.
i thank you. to me the distinction was not clear.
Ankh, We would instead say that the Ra material teaches us about the Law of One.
The group asked us to refer to it as the humble messenger of the Law of One after it was asked whether we should call it Ra or not.
As a teacher it does not have a monopoly on the Law of One any more than it would have a monopoly on the Law of gravity or the Law of entropy. That is the distinction I choose to make only because many might make the mistake of believing that it is through Ra alone that the Law of One is taught, or that the Law of One only exists as a teaching of Ra.
(02-26-2012, 08:41 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]Ankh, We would instead say that the Ra material teaches us about the Law of One.
The group asked us to refer to it as the humble messenger of the Law of One after it was asked whether we should call it Ra or not.
Not sure about the point you are making as what you are trying to say has already been stated in the Ra material. The questioner, Don, asked if it was acceptable for the title of the Book, they were about to make about the information they were receiving from the social memory complex, Ra, could be "the Law of One" and whether Ra could be the author of it. To which Ra answered:
Ra: I am Ra. The title of the book is acceptable. The authorship by vibratory sound complex Ra is, in our distortion of understanding, incomplete. We are messengers.
Shin'Ar Wrote:As a teacher it does not have a monopoly on the Law of One any more than it would have a monopoly on the Law of gravity or the Law of entropy. That is the distinction I choose to make only because many might make the mistake of believing that it is through Ra alone that the Law of One is taught, or that the Law of One only exists as a teaching of Ra.
Again, Ra is an humble messenger of the Law of One. The title of the Books, containing their messege, is "The Law of One".
My personal understanding is that it is up to each intelligence to use whatever catalysts it finds appropriate or suitable for its own learn/teachings. The Ra material may be but one of the many teach/learnings to study, understand and to progress towards the One Infinite Creator. The Ra material may be but one of many teach/learnings towards understanding of the Law of One.
However, the title of this thread, to which I am replying is "Ra material is not the Law of One". I hope that I was able to illuminate what I mean by this post, and the previous one. Furthermore, you make some kind of distinction between people who are following guiding principles of the Law of One, and calling themselves the Children of the Law of One, and those who are not, and these can not be called the Children of the Law of One. This use of separation between entities is as ancient as the ancient history of mankind itself upon this Earth. So, I am personally biased towards the Law of One as it is taught by the social memory complex Ra, or the Ra material: there is no separation.
Ankh, we are in agreement that the Law of One is found in many teachings around the world.
I do not understand your problem with my calling us, all who follow these teachings, as Children of the Law of One.
if you have a problem with that and choose to define yourself by some other means that is none of my business at all. And if you are bais toward the Ra material, than I assume that means that you are making some distinguishment between the Law of One as taught through it and the Law of One taught elsewhere.
Understanding of any teaching is always a matter of discernment and your prerogative. But I shall continue to refer to all who follow the teaching of the Law of One wheerver it is found, as Children of the Law of One, including yourself.
The title of the thread was to point out that the Ra material is not the Law of One, it is a teaching of the Law of One. The Law of One exists despite the ability of Ra to teach it. It exists as the Law of One just as the Law of gravity exists. If Ra taught the Law of gravity to you I would also be able to say that the Ra material is not the law of gravity. Would you be bias toward the law of garvity as taught by Ra over it as taught by Newton or Einstein? I am not sure what your concern is.
(02-26-2012, 11:08 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]Ankh, we are in agreement that the Law of One is found in many teachings around the world.
This is what I said:
Ankh Wrote:My personal understanding is that it is up to each intelligence to use whatever catalysts it finds appropriate or suitable for its own learn/teachings. The Ra material may be but one of the many teach/learnings to study, understand and to progress towards the One Infinite Creator. The Ra material may be but one of many teach/learnings towards understanding of the Law of One.
Shin'Ar Wrote:I do not understand your problem with my calling us, all who follow these teachings, as Children of the Law of One.
if you have a problem with that and choose to define yourself by some other means that is none of my business at all. And if you are bais toward the Ra material, than I assume that means that you are making some distinguishment between the Law of One as taught through it and the Law of One taught elsewhere.
Understanding of any teaching is always a matter of discernment and your prerogative. But I shall continue to refer to all who follow the teaching of the Law of One wheerver it is found, as Children of the Law of One, including yourself.
This is what you said in your first post to which I was responding:
Shin'Ar Wrote:The Law of One is found in various cultures and ancient teachings and those who are aware of it and follow its guiding principles can be known as the Children of the Law of One.
However there are many who are aware of it, and know it, but who do not follow it and deliberately choose to be in opposition to it. Those would not be Children of the Law of One.
Of how you choose to see other selves, is your choice. This is what Ra said in the matter of how to view other selves:
Ra: The universe is one being. When a mind/body/spirit complex views another mind/body/spirit complex, see the Creator.
Shin'Ar Wrote:The title of the thread was to point out that the Ra material is not the Law of One, it is a teaching of the Law of One. The Law of One exists despite the ability of Ra to teach it. It exists as the Law of One just as the Law of gravity exists. If Ra taught the Law of gravity to you I would also be able to say that the Ra material is not the law of gravity. Would you be bias toward the law of garvity as taught by Ra over it as taught by Newton or Einstein? I am not sure what your concern is.
I do not have any concerns, and have already addressed your thoughts in two previous posts. Whatever catalyst or tool you find helpful for your path, is your choice. As someone stated in this very thread, his dog has taught him the Law of One. So whatever works, dude.
I think it's pretty evident that wherever or however these massive theories and philosophies about life come from, ultimately they are all just long winded ways of trying to make people do what should be obvious to all of us.
Be nice to each other, we are all family, do the right thing, no matter what direct or indirect threats are perceived that might make us do the wrong thing, and we can live in a beautiful harmonious paradise here on earth.
We should not tolerate unnecessary suffering to even one of us.
All for one and one for all.
(02-26-2012, 12:57 PM)Amiyou Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's pretty evident that wherever or however these massive theories and philosophies about life come from, ultimately they are all just long winded ways of trying to make people do what should be obvious to all of us.
Be nice to each other, we are all family, do the right thing, no matter what direct or indirect threats are perceived that might make us do the wrong thing, and we can live in a beautiful harmonious paradise here on earth.
We should not tolerate unnecessary suffering to even one of us.
All for one and one for all.
What should be obvious goes well beyond 'being nice'. That's kind of like the minimum for someone bothering to take responsibility. If being nice to each other and doing the right things are the guide or goal, or is the advice we perceive we must give, we're in sorry shape.
(02-26-2012, 01:03 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (02-26-2012, 12:57 PM)Amiyou Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's pretty evident that wherever or however these massive theories and philosophies about life come from, ultimately they are all just long winded ways of trying to make people do what should be obvious to all of us.
Be nice to each other, we are all family, do the right thing, no matter what direct or indirect threats are perceived that might make us do the wrong thing, and we can live in a beautiful harmonious paradise here on earth.
We should not tolerate unnecessary suffering to even one of us.
All for one and one for all.
What should be obvious goes well beyond 'being nice'. That's kind of like the minimum for someone bothering to take responsibility. If being nice to each other and doing the right things are the guide or goal, or is the advice we perceive we must give, we're in sorry shape.
It might be the minimum, but it's all that is necessary.
If we do not tolerate happening to one what we would not like to happen to ourselves, problem solved.
If you prefer to plump up your own plan with extra niceties, well, that's a bonus.
What does being nice have to do with toleration or threats? Nothing, unless you require such contrast in order to better appreciate a gesture? In such an environment, with that type of need, there can be no paradise.
(02-26-2012, 01:22 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]What does being nice have to do with toleration or threats? Nothing, unless you require such contrast in order to better appreciate a gesture? In such an environment, with that type of need, there can be no paradise.
Sorry, you've lost me.
We appear to be talking different languages.
Not to worry, we don't have to agree.
lol. zenmaster strikes again. i think the point is the most obvious thing about this stuff is be nice to each other. that's what Jesus said. we don't listen. if we could handle that maybe there wouldn't have been a need for Law of One.
Shin'Ar, I think this is a helpful distinction to make between the
actual Law of One, and the Law of One
material. (I try to remember to add the word "material" when referring to the books.)
What you've noted seems like such a self-evident truth, but unless it's pointed out by the self or another, it can easily go unnoticed, and the mind can make an equivalency between the Ra information and the living reality of the Law of One that is the essential experience of who we really are.
In addition to the wonderful excerpts Ankh shared from Ra, I'll add this one:
4.20 "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."
Ra echoes the opening lines of the Tao te Ching, which, in this particular translation, goes:
"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things."
In fact, now that this issue has been raised, I think it would be a healthy community practice for us to attempt to refer to these books as "The Ra Material" rather than the "Law of One". We cannot fully end this identification between the two because the books have been published under the title "The Law of One" (what's done, in that regard, is done), but it seems wise to me to make this distinction more evident not only in our daily vocabulary usage, but also in the information offered in this very website. For example, it is now evident to us that there are a great many miscommunications that arose because this forum is titled "Strictly Law of One" rather than "Strictly Ra Material".
Having just said this, I want to also emphasize that "Law of One" websearches are often intended to find discussion on the Ra Material, so it would also be unwise to purge the phrase.
mmmmmm semantics!!!
I, for one, would like to say that I don't care what anyone chooses to call it; I love you all and I love your choices. In this case, I haven't seen anybody running around preaching the sovereignty of Ra over the Law of One, so I don't quite understand what the problem is that this seems to be addressing...
am I the only one who sees it this way? this seems to be much ado about nothing. Is the community currently mistaking Ra as being the only source of the Law of One?
(02-27-2012, 02:21 AM)hogey11 Wrote: [ -> ]mmmmmm semantics!!!
I, for one, would like to say that I don't care what anyone chooses to call it; I love you all and I love your choices. In this case, I haven't seen anybody running around preaching the sovereignty of Ra over the Law of One, so I don't quite understand what the problem is that this seems to be addressing...
am I the only one who sees it this way? this seems to be much ado about nothing. Is the community currently mistaking Ra as being the only source of the Law of One?
I agree. It doesn't matter to me, and I don't think Ra claimed exclusivity.
(02-27-2012, 02:21 AM)hogey11 Wrote: [ -> ]mmmmmm semantics!!!
I, for one, would like to say that I don't care what anyone chooses to call it; I love you all and I love your choices. In this case, I haven't seen anybody running around preaching the sovereignty of Ra over the Law of One, so I don't quite understand what the problem is that this seems to be addressing...
am I the only one who sees it this way? this seems to be much ado about nothing. Is the community currently mistaking Ra as being the only source of the Law of One?
I see this as something for Shin'ar. Our brother is working something out here.