Bring4th

Full Version: The Law of One vs "In the Light of Truth"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Has anyone here read Abd Rushin's work: "In The Light of Truth"?

In my estimation, it is a very compelling and comprehensive set of lectures compiled into three large books which I think very many parts were difficult to grasp back in 1995 and then again in 2007. After reading the Law of One, I went back to check the similarities in many of the chapters, both the easy and difficult ones.

I have seen some similarities but they seem incomplete and I noticed that the differences are stark when they occur.

In The Light Of Truth is a much older compilation than The Ra Material and seems surer. And while I think that the "entity" or the writer (incarnate) came from a dimension/density much higher than ours, it is also possible that he was just channeling like Carla.

However, I think that for anybody that is really seeking, the work of Abd Rushin is a good basis for comparison. I believe a lot of the not so easy to understand bits are not different from what Ra was communicating through Carla.

The reason I am not mentioning any specifics here is because I do not want to color your perception before you read it.

I wish the book was available online for free so that all can read and express their opinions for possibly a collective or individual benefit. Perhaps if you live near a large and very liberal library, you may find the three volumes there.

You may want to skip the chapters which discuss what you or many may consider regular material and go straight to those that seem to present some Ra concepts in not so similar language.

A lot of the easy to understand chapters and concepts are fluidly interwoven with their metaphysical explanations or equivalent.

There are some chapters that cast great doubt on -should i say, the intent of Ra.

It is serious, spiritually severe when pondered and beautifully consistent from beginning to end...

I would be very happy to know that someone on these "forums" has read it and can make comments I can learn from.

Also if someone could ask Carla to ask about Abd Rushin when she is channeling, that would just be the perfect, most superior icing on the cake.

Meanwhile I must state again as a person new to the Law of One, I have found some of the things I read most liberating.

I ask most humbly with gratitude to all that may undertake this comparison.

It will be sweeter if you can suspend all previously held concepts on religion even though the writer was not peddling any religion or religious concepts whatsoever

Thank you
IMHO it's not really possible to understand Truth while veiled in 3d. So different materials may seem to us to be even contradictory, but I am quite certain that they are all true. Except the material that comes from STS with the intent to lie. But we cannot differentiate in between those and the ones that are true, but for which we simply do not resonate with.

We do not know why we do or do not resonate with some material. Is it because it is intentionally false or because it's not useful for us at a particular point in our evolution? We cannot really differentiate.

All that I know is that I have never found another material (other than the Ra material) for which I resonate 100% with. Maybe I'm simply a Ra wanderer? Smile
(10-15-2012, 12:27 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Is this it? http://www.abdrushin.us/in-the-light-of-truth/

Yes the title is correct and I shall find myself happy if all the lectures are online for all to read

(10-15-2012, 12:22 PM)Alex Wrote: [ -> ]There are some chapters that cast great doubt on -should i say, the intent of Ra.

I admit that I'm unlikely to read the work any time soon, but I'm curious about what you're thinking of here. I know you'd rather have a discussion with other people that have read the material, but if that doesn't happen, maybe you could elaborate on this.
I have read the first part and it's very interesting so far. Thank you for the link.

My advice is simply this. Do not let any differences within any materials prevent you from taking in the parts that you do resonate with. Smile

Unbound

In what way can the intention of any be truly ascertained by another?
(10-15-2012, 01:36 PM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]In what way can the intention of any be truly ascertained by another?

In veiled 3d ? I do not see how that would be possible.

Cyan

(10-15-2012, 01:43 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2012, 01:36 PM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]In what way can the intention of any be truly ascertained by another?

In veiled 3d ? I do not see how that would be possible.

That statement has at least 3-4 different jokes in it dependin gon interpretation. Thats why i love this forum.
(10-15-2012, 12:22 PM)Alex Wrote: [ -> ]Has anyone here read Abd Rushin's work: "In The Light of Truth"?
Yes. Excellent book and great author. Read it 20 years ago.



(10-15-2012, 10:41 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2012, 12:22 PM)Alex Wrote: [ -> ]Has anyone here read Abd Rushin's work: "In The Light of Truth"?
Yes. Excellent book and great author. Read it 20 years ago.

Having "read it 20 years ago", firstly and quite simply implies to me that you have been (conciously or umconcioisly) seeking for a good while, even prior to actually reading such a collection of lectures/essays.

I am interested to know if at all you remember a great deal of it or at least if can intuit the spirit of the message by 'overview' in terms of how it "felt" at the time compared to how it feels today in the face of The Law of One. I have taken into consideration the fact that I do not know when you read The Ra Material.

Abd Rushin undertook to explain or describe the realms beyond ours, God, Jesus, blood, sex, heaven, reincarnation, the animistic, evolution, creation, the holy Grail ,'free will', the difference between the origin of man and animals, the mystery of lucifer, cycles of radiations, the primordial spiritual planes 1 to 7, and much more including how life should be lived. Forgive me, I know this is a rather long preamble; the question is this, (weather or not intent or truth can be figured in 'veiled 3d' or weather truth can be glimpsed at all) do you think (if you can remember this book appreciably) that perhaps Abd Rushin was channeling Yahweh. And that Yahweh may have been trying to re-assert his position in the overall scheme of things with the book "In The Light of Truth" especially considering what Ra said about Yahweh? (Please do not laugh just yet, because I can see the potential in that question)

I must admit to you that I feel that if anyone should look closely at Abd Rushin's work, one should perhaps notice a faithfully ferent fluidity (no holes) from one topic to the next and so forth. However; Secondly, he made a very bold claim that he is an envoy incarnate or at least that is strongly implied; do you or can you say, if you can intuit it in the light of Ra's session that Abd Rushin was channeling or was there some some form of transmigration? The reason I ask the last question is because, the body of knowledge is simply 'overwhelming'/large and the consistency of detail is on mark to 100% even for the difficult concepts.

I would like to read your opinion before I present possible aspects/scenarios. I am wishing that I will be able to keep it interesting enough.

Do you think the work is just a very comprehensive manual/handbook on how to play "the game".

Sometimes, I think the idea of flowing/going with what resonates is taken far too lightly, and depth is lost as a result, especially as it is 'important to play the game a certain way to certain ends desired', even though "...all is illusion..." out here!

Thank you.
Taking a glance, I was drawn to the chapter on "Hereditary Sin". It says:

Quote:It is the coming into the world with this voluntarily over-cultivated frontal brain, containing the danger of a mere intellectual domination with its inevitable evil manifestations, which is the hereditary sin!

Next, I was drawn to the chapter on "The Inner Voice". It says:

Quote:The intuition, which is not bound to space and time but connected with its homogeneous kind, with the spiritual, the eternal, immediately recognized the true nature of the other person and did not allow itself to be deceived by the cleverness of the intellect.

It is absolutely impossible for the intuition to err.

Here is yet another example of setting a false dichotomy between the two major aspects of mind. Intellect = bad. Intuition = good. This is very inchoate thinking. Not at all anything I would expect from a higher density being.

Clearly, we have these two aspects of mind, not to choose one and reject the other, but to blend them together into something that is greater than either of them alone.

Yes, overdependence on the intellect can lead to deceit and "evil". But overdependence on the intuition can also lead to the same. This should be obvious by now.

Still, I was willing to give it a third look. So I turned to the chapter on "Ideal Human Beings" to find this:

Quote:One can safely and simply call all these so-called misunderstood people “useless” people, because they prove how useless they are for proper life in the present time, being addicted only to what is unreal, and to some extent even frivolous. They always incline to what is unsuitable for a healthy life on earth. Unfortunately the path of these eternally misunderstood girls and women very frequently leads to a life commonly described as “frivolous” and immoral, because they only too gladly, too readily and too often let themselves be “consoled”, which is well known and unscrupulously exploited by a certain type of man.

So now, on top of false dichotomy we have elitism and scapegoating of women.

IMO- this work is highly questionable. I'm surprised anybody would even compare this to the Law of One philosophy, much less assert it to be superior.

Given the time frame of the work (early 20th century) I will acknowledge there does seem to be some broadening and elevation of certain Christian dogma. It does also offer some counterpoint to the dogmas of occultism.



So I took a look at another work of his called The Ten Commandments of God and The Lord's Prayer.

http://the10com.org/

I noticed this work is chock-full of all manner of intellectual arguments. It was then I realized that Abd-ru-shin (Oskar Ernst Bernhardt) wasn't really against reason and intellect, per se. Merely that he preferred that others abandon their own reason and intellect in order to adopt his own. RollEyes

Not saying they're all bad ideas, just saying...
My crown lit up quite strongly while reading your post Tenet.

Thank you my friend.

HeartHeartHeart
(10-16-2012, 03:33 PM)Alex Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2012, 10:41 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2012, 12:22 PM)Alex Wrote: [ -> ]Has anyone here read Abd Rushin's work: "In The Light of Truth"?
Yes. Excellent book and great author. Read it 20 years ago.

Having "read it 20 years ago", firstly and quite simply implies to me that you have been (conciously or umconcioisly) seeking for a good while, even prior to actually reading such a collection of lectures/essays.

I am interested to know if at all you remember a great deal of it or at least if can intuit the spirit of the message by 'overview' in terms of how it "felt" at the time compared to how it feels today in the face of The Law of One. I have taken into consideration the fact that I do not know when you read The Ra Material.
I first read the Ra material probably mid to late 90's, after having read ITLOT. At the time I was seriously seeking for those types of illuminating 'keys'. It's really the same type of message which attempts to express unseen principles. But ITLOT is rather overly zealous, and somewhat parochial compared to the Ra Material, IMHO.

(10-16-2012, 03:33 PM)Alex Wrote: [ -> ]the question is this, (weather or not intent or truth can be figured in 'veiled 3d' or weather truth can be glimpsed at all) do you think (if you can remember this book appreciably) that perhaps Abd Rushin was channeling Yahweh. And that Yahweh may have been trying to re-assert his position in the overall scheme of things with the book "In The Light of Truth" especially considering what Ra said about Yahweh? (Please do not laugh just yet, because I can see the potential in that question)
Short answer is no.

(10-16-2012, 03:33 PM)Alex Wrote: [ -> ]I must admit to you that I feel that if anyone should look closely at Abd Rushin's work, one should perhaps notice a faithfully ferent fluidity (no holes) from one topic to the next and so forth. However; Secondly, he made a very bold claim that he is an envoy incarnate or at least that is strongly implied; do you or can you say, if you can intuit it in the light of Ra's session that Abd Rushin was channeling or was there some some form of transmigration? The reason I ask the last question is because, the body of knowledge is simply 'overwhelming'/large and the consistency of detail is on mark to 100% even for the difficult concepts.
I'd say that he was channeling, yes. It's the typical transpersonal stream-of-consciousness flow, albeit personal-worldview interpreted .

(10-16-2012, 03:33 PM)Alex Wrote: [ -> ]I would like to read your opinion before I present possible aspects/scenarios. I am wishing that I will be able to keep it interesting enough.

Do you think the work is just a very comprehensive manual/handbook on how to play "the game".

Sometimes, I think the idea of flowing/going with what resonates is taken far too lightly, and depth is lost as a result, especially as it is 'important to play the game a certain way to certain ends desired', even though "...all is illusion..." out here!
I've read hundreds of other works since then and eventually found what I needed, well enough where I no longer find anything new or substantially improved as far as basic principles of existence here. You're your own handbook because all of your biases and desires are constantly pointing to wholeness. As you learn about the mind and you grow in awareness of mind you realize it's primary to or seminal to just about everything worthwhile we do here. Abd-ru-shin was trying to explain the same thing.