The Law of One vs "In the Light of Truth"

[zenmaster]

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.

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.

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 .

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.