Bring4th

Hi,

First of all, I would like to express my respect for your faith, teaching and spreading of the Law of One for so long time.

During the last months, I have been study the Rá Material deeply in order to understand better its pantheist concept that everything is the Creator, but I confess you I have serious difficulty, so I decide to ask your help.

I believe that intelligence must support my faith in our Creator and in function of that since 1984, I have been studying and tring to live in accordance to the teachings of the Douctrine of the Spirits.

In order to understand my doubts on Ra material mentioned above, please, let me present you the Spirits' Book - first chapter about God, published in 1857 that I believe shall be self explanatory.

Thank you in advance for your comments.

From: http://spiritwritings.com/kardecspiritsbook1.html#God

BOOK FIRST -- CAUSES
CHAPTER I
GOD

1. GOD AND INFINITY - 2. PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD - 3. ATTRIBUTES OF THE DIVINITY - 4. PANTHEISM

God and Infinity

1. What is God?

"God is the Supreme Intelligence--First Cause of all things."

2. What is to be understood by infinity?

"That which has neither beginning nor end; the unknown: all that is unknown is infinite."

3. Can it be said that God is infinity?

"An incomplete definition. Poverty of human speech incompetent to define what transcends human intelligence."

God is infinite in His perfections, but "infinity" is an abstraction. To say that God is infinity is to substitute the attribute of a thing for the thing itself, and to define something unknown by reference to some other thing equally unknown.
Proofs of the Existence of God

4. What proof have we of the existence of God?

"The axiom which you apply in all your scientific researches, 'There is no effect without a cause.' Search out the cause of whatever is not the work of man, and reason will furnish the answer to your question."

To assure ourselves of the existence of God, we have only to look abroad on the works of creation. The universe exists, therefore it has a cause. To doubt the existence of God is to doubt that every effect has a cause, and to assume that something can have been made by nothing.

5. What is to be inferred from the intuition of the existence of God which may be said to be the common property of the human mind?

"That God exists; for whence could the human mind derive this intuition if it had no real basis? The inference to be drawn from the fact of this intuition is a corollary of the axiom 'There is no effect without a cause.'"

6. May not our seemingly intuitive sense of the existence of God be the result of education and of acquired ideas?

"If such were the case, how should this intuitive sense be possessed by your savages?"

If the intuition of the existence of a Supreme Being were only the result of education, it would not be universal, and would only exist, like all other acquired knowledge, in the minds of those who had received the special education to which it would be due.

7. Is the first cause of the formation of things to be found in the essential properties of matter?

"If such were the case, what would be the cause of those properties? There must always be a first cause."

To attribute the first formation of things to the essential properties of matter, would be to take the effect for the cause, for those properties are themselves an effect, which must have a cause.

8. What is to be thought of the opinion that attributes the first formation of things to a fortuitous combination of matter, in other words, to chance?

"Another absurdity! Who that is possessed of common sense can regard chance as an intelligent agent? And, besides, what is chance? Nothing."

The harmony which regulates the mechanism of the universe can only result from combinations adopted in view of predetermined ends, and thus, by its very nature, reveals the existence of an Intelligent Power. To attribute the first formation of things to chance is nonsense for chance cannot produce the results of intelligence. If chance could be intelligent, it would cease to be chance.

9. What proof have we that the first cause of all things is a Supreme Intelligence, superior to all other intelligences?

"You have a proverb which says, 'The workman is known by his work.' Look around you, and, from the quality of the work, infer that of the workman."

We judge of the power of an intelligence by its works as no human being could create that which is produced by nature, it is evident that the first cause must be an Intelligence superior to man. Whatever may be the prodigies accomplished by human intelligence, that intelligence itself must have a cause and the greater the results achieved by it, the greater must be the cause of which it is the effect. It is this Supreme Intelligence that is the first cause of all things, whatever the name by which mankind may designate it.

Attributes of the Divinity

10. Can man comprehend the essential nature of God?

"No; he lacks the sense required for comprehending it."

11. Will man ever become able to comprehend the mystery of the Divinity?

"When his mind shall no longer be obscured by matter, and when, by his perfection, he shall have brought himself nearer to God, be will see and comprehend Him."

The inferiority of the human faculties renders it impossible for man to comprehend the essential nature of God. In the infancy of the race, man often confounds the Creator with the creature, and attributes to the former the imperfections of the latter. But, in proportion as his moral sense becomes developed, man's thought penetrates more deeply into the nature of things, and he is able to form to himself a juster and more rational idea of the Divine Being, although his idea of that Being must always be imperfect and incomplete.

12. If we cannot comprehend the essential nature of God, can we have an idea of some of His perfections?

"Yes, of some of them. Man comprehends them better in proportion as he raises himself above matter; he obtains glimpses of them through the exercise of his intelligence."

13. When we say that God is eternal, infinite, unchangeable, immaterial, unique, all-powerful, sovereignty just and good, have we not a complete idea of His attributes?

"Yes, judging from your point of view, because you think that you sum up everything in those terms; but you must understand that there are things which transcend the intelligence of the most intelligent man, and for which your language, limited to your ideas and sensations, has no expressions. Your reason tells you that God must possess those perfections in the supreme degree; for, if one of them were lacking, or were not possessed by Him in an infinite degree, He would riot be superior to all, and consequently would not be God. In order to be above all things, God must undergo no vicissitudes, He must have none of the imperfections of which the imagination can conceive."

God is eternal. If He had had a beginning, He must either have sprung from nothing, or have been created by some being anterior to Himself. It is thus that, step by step, we arrive at the idea of infinity and eternity.

God is unchangeable. If He were subject to change, the laws which rule the universe would have no stability.

God is immaterial, that is to say, that His nature differs from everything that we call matter, or otherwise. He would not be unchangeable, for He would be subject to the transformations of matter.

God is unique. If there were several Gods, there would be neither unity of plan nor unity of power in the ordaining of the universe.

God is all-powerful because He is unique. If He did not possess sovereign power, there would be something more powerful, or no less powerful, than Himself. He would not have created all things and those which He had not created would be the work of another God.

God is sovereignty just and good. The providential wisdom of the divine laws is revealed as clearly in the smallest things as in the greatest and this wisdom renders it impossible to doubt either His justice or His goodness.

Pantheism

14. Is God a being distinct from the universe, or is He, according to the opinion of some, the result of all the forces and intelligences of the universe?

"If the latter were the case, God would not be God, for He would be effect and not cause; He cannot be both cause and effect."

"God exists. You cannot doubt His existence, and that is one essential point. Do not seek to go beyond it; do not lose yourselves in a labyrinth which, for you, is without an issue. Such inquiries would not make you better; they would rather tend to add to your pride, by causing you to imagine that you knew something, while, in reality, you would know nothing. Put aside systems. You have things enough to think about that concern you much more nearly, beginning with yourselves. Study your own imperfections, that you may get rid of them; this will be far more useful to you than the vain attempt to penetrate the impenetrable."

15. What is to be thought of the opinion according to which all natural bodies, all the beings, all the globes of the universe are parts of the Divinity, and constitute in their totality the Divinity itself; in other words the Pantheistic theory?

"Man, not being able to make himself God, would fain make himself out to be, at least, a part of God."

16. Those who hold this theory profess to find in it the demonstration of some of the attributes of God. The worlds of the universe being infinitely numerous, God is thus seen to be infinite; vacuum, or nothingness, being nowhere, God is everywhere: God being everywhere, since everything is an integral part of God, He is thus seen to be the intelligent cause of all the phenomena of the universe. What can we oppose to this argument?

"The dictates of reason. Reflect on the assumption in question, and you will have no difficulty in detecting its absurdity."

The Pantheistic theory makes of God a material being, who, though endowed with a supreme intelligence, would only be on a larger scale what we are on a smaller one. But, as matter is incessantly undergoing transformation, God, if this theory were true, would have no stability. He would be subject to all the vicissitudes, and even to all the needs, of humanity He would lack one of the essential attributes of the Divinity, namely, unchangeableness. The properties of matter cannot be attributed to God without degrading our idea of the Divinity and all the subtleties of sophistry fail to solve the problem of His essential nature. We do not know what God is; but we know that it is impossible that He should not be and the theory just stated is in contradiction with His most essential attributes. It confounds the Creator with the creation, precisely as though we should consider an ingenious machine to be an integral portion of the mechanician who invented it.

The intelligence of God is revealed in His works, as is that of a painter in his picture; but the works of God are no more God Himself than the picture is the artist who conceived and painted it.

If God is so ineffable how does this source apparently seem to have knowledge of it in any form? Seems dogmatic to me.

I believe in panentheism where God is more than the manifested Universe. But I don't like the word God. I've had some bad experiences with him. I prefer the Infinite Creator.

I have been asked this question before. I will attempt to address this from multiple angles. Some you may find useful, and others maybe not. I hope is of some value to you, friend.

The difficulty with this has to do with being too focused on intellect and not focused enough on the heart. The intellect is linear, but infinity isn't, so there is no way to for it to ever hope to grasp it. Only the heart can hope to understand. Our intellect is certainly useful, but its use is for survival, for solving puzzles. God is not a puzzle, nor is reality, just as a flower is not a puzzle. The flower simply is, there is nothing to figure out.

While there appears to be many beings, there is truly only being itself. Just as when a ray of light shines through a prism, there appears to be many colors formed, but it's truly only one light. We live in a world of apparent duality, and as such, one appears as many. It's an illusion.

Notice how when you dream at night, that you appear as only one character within the dream. You identify as a certain imaginary entity. And when you awaken you realize that you aren't actually that character at all; what you are is the dreamer - you are the source of the dream. In life, it also appears that there are separate characters; this too is ultimately an illusion - what we really are is the Source.

There is an episode in the show Adventure Time, with a bubble as a character. This bubble is lost, trying to find its way home. At some point, it pops, only to realize that it wasn't a bubble at all, it was actually air. I think this is a beautiful metaphor, I was surprised to see it on Cartoon Network.

I am going to assume you're Christian, but I may be wrong and that's fine. If you aren't, then don't bother with the following question.

Is not all food the body of Christ?

Different names, all the same thing. We don't need to get bogged down on variations and semantics. Language over complicates things.

As far as the existence of God, there is a simple way to answer this. This is answered most simply with another question.

Does silence exist, or does it not exist?

Notice, this is a semantic question and nothing more. It doesn't matter how it's answered because it doesn't change anything, it really doesn't even mean anything. So it is with the God dilemma. The God dilemma exists because of our language structure and nothing more.

(02-17-2014, 11:28 AM)NOLANO Wrote: [ -> ]During the last months, I have been study the Rá Material deeply in order to understand better its pantheist concept that everything is the Creator, but I confess you I have serious difficulty, so I decide to ask your help.

...

The Pantheistic theory makes of God a material being, who, though endowed with a supreme intelligence, would only be on a larger scale what we are on a smaller one. But, as matter is incessantly undergoing transformation, God, if this theory were true, would have no stability. He would be subject to all the vicissitudes, and even to all the needs, of humanity He would lack one of the essential attributes of the Divinity, namely, unchangeableness. The properties of matter cannot be attributed to God without degrading our idea of the Divinity and all the subtleties of sophistry fail to solve the problem of His essential nature. We do not know what God is; but we know that it is impossible that He should not be and the theory just stated is in contradiction with His most essential attributes. It confounds the Creator with the creation, precisely as though we should consider an ingenious machine to be an integral portion of the mechanician who invented it.

The intelligence of God is revealed in His works, as is that of a painter in his picture; but the works of God are no more God Himself than the picture is the artist who conceived and painted it.

Hi Nolano. Welcome to the forums, and I hope all is well in Brazil where you are.

yes, I think your deductive reasoning is correct. That if the Creator is inside the Creation, and is the Creation itself ('pantheism'), then the Creator would be subject to change. That is, Creator is learning, experiencing, and gaining new understandings of itself.

the Ra material supports this stance/viewpoint of the Creator passing through octave after octave in learning new ways to perceive.

I guess I can see your viewpoint, though, about the Divinity having the quality of 'unchangeableness'.

If there is one unchangeableness, then that would be the concept of infinity, which encompassses all things, all possibilities, all configurations. If there is some essence of Creator, it would be in that principle; and that principle is indeed timeless and unchangable.

I guess the paradox arises if Infinity cannot 'see itself'. So one of the possibilities contained within Infinity is the concept of 'Finity' and being able to see a sequential (space/time) playing out of events. And so its my understanding that Finity is chosen as one of the possibilities out of Infinity, and thus the Creation/Creator/the current now, is just an experience of that. The whole progression of an Octave ('a universe') exists so that a particular Finity can be explored in its ultimate depth and variety.

so perhaps your question, Nolano, is about the interplay of this Infinity/Finity concept.

namaste.

I've always wondered if Creator itself is beyond the mystery.

Hi, All

I would like to thank all persons that have replayed my note until now.

I could answer some questions above, but I will not do it, because my only objective in this forum is: understand better the Law of One presented by Ra.

In the Introduction of the Ra Material, first book, page 24, Hatonn shows the concept about the Creator as the following:

"My friends, it may seem to you that a thought of a nature other than
one of love and brotherhood might be a thought generated not of our
Creator. This is not possible, my friends. All thought that is generated
is generated by the Creator. All things that are generated are generated
by the Creator. He is all things and is in all places, and all of the
consciousness and all of the thought that exists is the thought of our
Creator. His infinite number of parts all have free will, and all may
generate in any way they choose. All of His parts communicate with all
of the creation, in His entire and infinite sense."

And at the first session, pages 71-72, Ra defines the Law of One as following:

"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 the 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."

In my original note, I've included the Douctrine of the Spirits' logical and rational arguments against Pantheism based on the concepts about God and His attributes shown in the first chapter of the Spirits' Book.

I understand that Law of One and Pantheism are the same things and if that is not correct please, I would like to ask Mrs. Rueckert and her group to explain me the differences.

Thank you.

Seems like a great question for their weekly radio broadcast.

Post it here http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...#pid145122

I am reading the recommended material and currently can not wait to see what it says on the next page.

Quote:I understand that Law of One and Pantheism are the same things and if that is not correct please, I would like to ask Mrs. Rueckert and her group to explain me the differences.

lol there are two types of modern philosophers; Spinozists and people who aren't philosophers at all

Pantheism is not the same as the philosophy presented in the LOO, it does have direct similarities and the way I see it, the LOO is a more developed version of the same concept.

I gotta say it though, that "spiritwritings" document displays a rather significant misunderstanding of pantheism and thus the criticism of it is off the mark.

---

Welcome to the forums btw

I enjoyed reading some of your "Spirits' Book." I think we all get into trouble with too many "isms." Our human mind/brain is so limited at this time and true spiritual understanding does not come through rational analysis, IMHO. Some of us are what I think of as spiritual geeks - we love to think about and analyze our own and others' ideas about spirit. Hopefully most of us go beyond this to learn some form of meditation because this is the common and recommended way to move beyond analytical and truly begin to experience whatever it is that forms the ground of our being and the framework of the universe. "Thinking about" is not the same as "directly experiencing."

Quote:16. Those who hold this theory profess to find in it the demonstration of some of the attributes of God. The worlds of the universe being infinitely numerous, God is thus seen to be infinite; vacuum, or nothingness, being nowhere, God is everywhere: God being everywhere, since everything is an integral part of God, He is thus seen to be the intelligent cause of all the phenomena of the universe. What can we oppose to this argument?

"The dictates of reason. Reflect on the assumption in question, and you will have no difficulty in detecting its absurdity."

The Pantheistic theory makes of God a material being, who, though endowed with a supreme intelligence, would only be on a larger scale what we are on a smaller one. But, as matter is incessantly undergoing transformation, God, if this theory were true, would have no stability. He would be subject to all the vicissitudes, and even to all the needs, of humanity He would lack one of the essential attributes of the Divinity, namely, unchangeableness. The properties of matter cannot be attributed to God without degrading our idea of the Divinity and all the subtleties of sophistry fail to solve the problem of His essential nature. We do not know what God is; but we know that it is impossible that He should not be and the theory just stated is in contradiction with His most essential attributes. It confounds the Creator with the creation, precisely as though we should consider an ingenious machine to be an integral portion of the mechanician who invented it.

The intelligence of God is revealed in His works, as is that of a painter in his picture; but the works of God are no more God Himself than the picture is the artist who conceived and painted it.

Quote:"The Pantheistic theory makes of God a material being"

Two comments:
1) The Ra material supports the idea that the infinite Creator is not solely a material being.
2) There seems to be a hidden assumption in the question, or answer or both, in that all of Creation is material. It is logically consistent that if all of Creation is everything, including non-material things such time/space, and etc, then referring to everything as God would not make God a material being.

Quote: He would lack one of the essential attributes of the Divinity, namely, "unchangeableness."

If God is everything, it does not follow that he is necessarily constantly changing due to the nature of infinite and due to the nature of the concept of infinite universes. Some physics theorize that our physical universe is one of an infinite amount of universes, some with different properties and different laws of natures. The idea of time and change no longer make sense when you have infinite possibilities playing out in infinite alternate universes. Thus, I think the answer assumes there is one, concrete, single universe, with a single timeline, which isn't a good assumption because it may not be true.

172. Do we accomplish all our different corporeal existences upon this earth?

"Not all of them, for those existences take place in many different worlds. The world in which you now are is neither the first nor the last of these, but is one of those that are the most material, and the furthest removed from perfection."

furthest removed from perfection....

Hi,

On the second paragraph of the Introduction the Ra Material, Professor Don Elkins says:

"Since our experimental work began, and even before we officially formed a
research group, there was considerable confusion about the nature of our
research. I would like to state that I consider my point of view to be purely
scientific. Many readers of this material have used as a basis for its
evaluation a previously assumed philosophical bias which has ranged from
what I would call objectively scientific to subjectively theological. It is not
the purpose of our research group to attempt to do anything other than
make experimental data available. Each reader will undoubtedly reach his
own unique conclusion about the meaning of this body of data."

As Professor Elkins did (I suppose), I do believe in God, telephaty, intelligent life in other planets, channeling, Larson's Reciprocal System, spirits..., but our discussion here is other and I would like to call your attention to how serious it is.

My questioning on the Law of One, the basement of the Ra Material, is logical and applicable to any cientific experiment data analysis:
- There is no effect without cause.
- A cause must preceed its effect(s).
- Cause and effect must be distinct each other.

As I said before, I would like to receive a logical answer from Mrs Rueckert and her group that are studying and divulgating the Ra Material since 1982.

Thank you again.

I think it's more accurate to say that the philosophy in the Law of One material is panentheistic than that it is pantheistic. See http://www.websyte.com/alan/pan.htm

Quote:This universal arrangement is not pantheism (all is God), but panentheism, a term devised by Karl C. F. Krause (1781-1832) to describe his thought. It is best known for its use by Charles Hartshorne and recently by Matthew Fox. Panentheism says that all is in God, somewhat as if God were the ocean and we were fish. If one considers what is in God's body to be part of God, then we can say that God is all there is and then some. The universe is God's body, but God's awareness or personality is greater than the sum of all the parts of the universe. All the parts have some degree of freedom in co-creating with God. At the start of its momentary career as a subject, an experience is God--as the divine initial aim. As the experience carries on its choosing process, it is a freely aiming reality that is not strictly God, since it departs from God's purpose to some degree. Yet everything is within God.

(02-19-2014, 08:31 AM)NOLANO Wrote: [ -> ]My questioning on the Law of One, the basement of the Ra Material, is logical and applicable to any cientific experiment data analysis:
- There is no effect without cause.
- A cause must preceed its effect(s).
- Cause and effect must be distinct each other.

As I said before, I would like to receive a logical answer from Mrs Rueckert and her group that are studying and divulgating the Ra Material since 1982.

Thank you again.

Your understanding of cause and effect may not be correct.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...145454.htm

Quote:Physicists have now shown that in quantum mechanics it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one.

Uh, let's not diverge into "anything can happen in quantum land", it just doesn't really help this dude.

NOLANO- If you want to receive a logical answer ask a logical question. What do you want to know exactly? How the LOO is different from Pantheism or if they are the same thing? They are not the same thing, in the same way that the LOO is not the same worldview as animism. Human outlooks develop over time.

Quote:My questioning on the Law of One, the basement of the Ra Material, is logical and applicable to any cientific experiment data analysis:
- There is no effect without cause.
- A cause must preceed its effect(s).
- Cause and effect must be distinct each other.

Yes, but what has that got to do with the Ra material? I understand that there may be issues of translation going on but I am willing to answer your questions if you can lay them out a bit clearer.

That material you are quoting has it's own inconsistencies, flaws and assumptions, it should be treated with the same attitude you are taking to the Ra material, which by the way, I am glad to see, I just can't understand what exactly you're getting at.

(02-20-2014, 02:24 AM)Fang Wrote: [ -> ]Uh, let's not diverge into "anything can happen in quantum land", it just doesn't really help this dude.

NOLANO- If you want to receive a logical answer ask a logical question. What do you want to know exactly? How the LOO is different from Pantheism or if they are the same thing? They are not the same thing, in the same way that the LOO is not the same worldview as animism. Human outlooks develop over time.

Quote:My questioning on the Law of One, the basement of the Ra Material, is logical and applicable to any cientific experiment data analysis:
- There is no effect without cause.
- A cause must preceed its effect(s).
- Cause and effect must be distinct each other.

Yes, but what has that got to do with the Ra material? I understand that there may be issues of translation going on but I am willing to answer your questions if you can lay them out a bit clearer.

That material you are quoting has it's own inconsistencies, flaws and assumptions, it should be treated with the same attitude you are taking to the Ra material, which by the way, I am glad to see, I just can't understand what exactly you're getting at.

Dear Mr. Fang,

Thank you for returning our discussion to the main forum's objective: 'Strictly Law of One Material'.

I apologize if my notes weren't clear enough, but for sure you already have noted, English is not my coloquial language, so I have serious difficult to understand the meaning of Ra's “far-fetched” phases and I think other people have the same feeling on that too.

On my previous notes, I'm trying to follow the forum's rules just copy and paste some Ra Material's paragraphs for this discussion, except on my original note, where I needed to explain you what I do believe, in order to place my doubts about my understanding on the Law of One.

My intention on this procedure was not to do proselitism (I'm an electronic product designer, not a priest), but to present a logical and clean thoughts sequence (at least to me) about the Creator, His attributes and the refutation on the pantheism (verything is the Creator, creatures are parts of the Creator).

In 1982, Professor Don Elkins presented the Ra Material a cientific experiment data only but this information is so fascinating (extraterrestrials, Service to others, Service to Yourself, Conferation, Orion group, wanderers, densities, harvest, ancient history, cience, etc) and because that possiblly people abdicate to analyze it critical and rationally and Ra, his humble messenger, would approve that, for sure, since this information is true.

Having the Ra Material / Law of One in written form is advantage for our analysis, since one can reads it many times and try to understand subjectively its meaning.

And when I read this:

“My friends, it may seem to you that a thought of a nature other than
one of love and brotherhood might be a thought generated not of our Creator. This is not possible, my friends. All thought that is generated is generated by the Creator. All things that are generated are generated by the Creator. He is all things and is in all places, and all of the consciousness and all of the thought that exists is the thought of our
Creator. His infinite number of parts all have free will, and all may generate in any way they choose. All of His parts communicate with all of the creation, in His entire and infinite sense."

And at the first session, pages 71-72, Ra defines the Law of One as following:

"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 the 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."

Based on whole Ra Material text only, please, explain me why the highlighted texts don't express the same concepts from pantheism.

So what are the differences between Law of One and pantheism?

Thank you.

I'm glad there is no right or wrong. Takes a lot of the pressure off. It's fascinating that I am infinity. I sure don't feel infinite. I wonder if our higher self feels infinite.

I can answer only by saying that I don't know very much about pantheism, nor do I want to. It just isn't interesting to me. The LOO material is stuff that I have read several times and find it provides answers to many of my questions, and is logically consistent. I don't call it holy scripture nor do I see it as a life to live to prove that I am a follower and a believer. I just like it and am glad I have read it and can read it again.

Your material has a lot of the masculine pronouns in discussing God. So a simple rhetorical question is, What does he do with his penis?

This is my last post on this thread.

I've started it believing that after almost half century studying the Law of One, someone already had rose any doubt about its similarity to Pantheism or cientificly analized the Ra Material's concepts about the Creator using logical statements of cause and effect, but for my surprise no one did this before.

As I said before my objetive here is to understand the Law of One better asking people that already have read books, have attended courses, have discussed in radio, forums or chats, have meditated about it, but I never said that I agree with it.

According to rules of this fórum, what you and me do believe are in discussion here, but just the Ra Material and the last replays to my questioning are become personal and far from a civilized discussion with mutual respect, so I prefer to give up.

But I relember you that Law of One is the fundamental stone of the Ra Material and as divine true must resist to questioning otherwise the whole building can fall down.

In name of freedom of thinking, I ask to the forum admnistrator keeping the thread opened for a while, in order to allow other people place their opinions about the subject.

“Unshakable faith is only that which can meet reason face to face in every Human epoch.”

Thank you.

Causality (durational time) is not primary in infinity/oneness. That is part of the illusion, as any identifiable part and its relationship to something else necessarily would be. Also, causality is not primary in panthesim.

(02-20-2014, 10:40 AM)NOLANO Wrote: [ -> ]Dear Mr. Fang,

Thank you for returning our discussion to the main forum's objective: 'Strictly Law of One Material'.

I apologize if my notes weren't clear enough, but for sure you already have noted, English is not my coloquial language, so I have serious difficult to understand the meaning of Ra's “far-fetched” phases and I think other people have the same feeling on that too.

On my previous notes, I'm trying to follow the forum's rules just copy and paste some Ra Material's paragraphs for this discussion, except on my original note, where I needed to explain you what I do believe, in order to place my doubts about my understanding on the Law of One.

My intention on this procedure was not to do proselitism (I'm an electronic product designer, not a priest), but to present a logical and clean thoughts sequence (at least to me) about the Creator, His attributes and the refutation on the pantheism (verything is the Creator, creatures are parts of the Creator).

In 1982, Professor Don Elkins presented the Ra Material a cientific experiment data only but this information is so fascinating (extraterrestrials, Service to others, Service to Yourself, Conferation, Orion group, wanderers, densities, harvest, ancient history, cience, etc) and because that possiblly people abdicate to analyze it critical and rationally and Ra, his humble messenger, would approve that, for sure, since this information is true.

Having the Ra Material / Law of One in written form is advantage for our analysis, since one can reads it many times and try to understand subjectively its meaning.

And when I read this:

“My friends, it may seem to you that a thought of a nature other than
one of love and brotherhood might be a thought generated not of our Creator. This is not possible, my friends. All thought that is generated is generated by the Creator. All things that are generated are generated by the Creator. He is all things and is in all places, and all of the consciousness and all of the thought that exists is the thought of our
Creator. His infinite number of parts all have free will, and all may generate in any way they choose. All of His parts communicate with all of the creation, in His entire and infinite sense."

And at the first session, pages 71-72, Ra defines the Law of One as following:

"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 the 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."

Based on whole Ra Material text only, please, explain me why the highlighted texts don't express the same concepts from pantheism.

So what are the differences between Law of One and pantheism?

Thank you.

Firstly, thankyou for sharing your view, it's healthy to question this material or anything that could radically change one's outlook. Now many people may take the Ra Material on "faith", I have noticed a lot of people talking about some sort of divide between the "believers" and the "non believers" to be honest though I personally am neither of these. I, like you wish to investigate the Ra material in a rational manner.

I didn't take your words as an attempt of conversion, you're obviously someone who wants to learn, I hope I am able to teach in a small manner.

Now, I'm still a student, I have not had the teaching in the fields that I investigate yet but from what I know there are differences between pantheism (as laid out by Spinoza) and the Ra Material. On that note though I must say that many of the refutations of Spinoza's pantheism have shown a rather significant misunderstanding of what he was conveying and so are refuting a concept of their own creation.
As far as the "far fetched" aspects of the Ra Material, if one takes a naturalistic approach as Spinoza did in forming his philosophy there does come a time (at least from my experience) when it becomes clear how these seemingly "out there" things could emerge into being within the framework Ra described.

Spinoza's philosophy, for me personally, is the maximum height of human thought. The model of reality laid out by Ra seems to be a development of these ideas. So yes, when glancing at the two they do seem remarkably similar and I for one would really rather people go towards Spinoza than Ra as many are not willing to apply rational evaluation to the text but rather use it as confirmation of infinite possibilities and to validate their own neurotic beliefs.

Belief wavers compared to knowledge, I think you and me would get along well.
If you come back and see this I wish you all the best.

I'm sorry if this is lacking in substance but I am rather pressed for time at the moment.

This may be too simple an answer.

Everything is The Infinite Creator experiencing Itself. This is unity.