The Confederation

[Monica]

Firstly:Many of the things Don asked were on many things Don was already aware of or knew for himself with certainty, which however Ra refused to answer

Many? Such as? Can you provide a few examples?

Secondly: Don moreover (IMHO) was never the point as much as was the intended audience, this in the same manner that the author of the "Ohaspe" was never the intended audience as much as was the audience it was intended for.

Again respectfully, again I disagree with your speculation. Ra stated that numbers were not important; an audience of only a few was sufficient for them to provide their message. But that's not the same as assuming that Don was the lone intended recipient. Are you saying that Ra offered all those teachings for Don only? And now, are Q'uo offering their teachings for Carla, Jim, and perhaps a handful of others only? How is it that you could even know this at all? Ra/Q'uo have both stated that they answer the call. If I remember correctly, Ra even stated a number, and quite a large number it was, denoting those whose call they were answering.

On the contrary, I would venture to guess that the Law of One might even have reached a larger audience than Oahspe. That's only a guess, though. There's no way I could possibly know, short of checking sales figures of the books. Even then, it would be pointless, since Ra made it clear that 1 million vs 1 thousand was of no consequence. Again, though, that is a far cry from Don being the lone recipient of the teachings.

Two thousand pages of a book called the Ohaspe would have been a monster of an intent for a book designed for one single man, as much as the Law of One would be assumed to be intended for just one man, i.e. Don et al, this notwithstanding the fact that Ra left it open for the L/L group to publish or not. Surely Ra had the inkling the L/L "might" publish, and that the information might be disseminated to the public, which may have been nothing more than an unspoken hope of the Confederation to begin with as much as was the intent for the Ohaspe to be for a wider audience more than one, even if but just one single soul were saved in the process.

I think Ra had way more than an inkling. Remember, Ra was answering the call. Carla, Jim, and Don were facilitators and participants in that service. Remember too that they were/are Wanderers.

To the converse again, it would be natural to assume that there were far many more things Don did not know, or perhaps did not believe, or was not even remotely intuitively aware of, but that Ra did speak to nonetheless, i.e the entire concept of STO vs STS which is an entire antithesis of the Christian concept of "good people go to heaven - bad people go to hell".

Not knowing something does not mean that the offering of same would result in a violation of free will. Don's free will was to learn; hence it was in alignment with his free will that new info be offered.

So we have: (a) Don was not aware of many things, nor did he possibly believe vs disbelieve in these many things, many he further knew nothing of, yet Ra spoke to these things in any event (b) Don spoke to things which Don certainly knew of, or was intuitively aware of, or even absolutely knew with certainty of, which Ra refused to answer irrespectively.

a) I see no reason why Ra wouldn't
b) Such as?

Ra spoke to things Don knew nothing of, or even at first disbelieved in, yet answers and information were given, verses Ra refused to speak of things Don in fact did know of, or intuitively was aware of.

If Don already knew of it, then why did he ask the question?

I also believe it safe to say in this case that there is certainly another mechanism involved than is the mere "infringement of free will" principle.

And that would be...what?

The principle of Reincarnation is a principle as old as Methuselah.

In certain cultures, yes. But to others, it was either unknown or was considered evil/satanic and therefore disregarded. I have met people who immediately dismiss an entire body of knowledge upon the mere mention of reincarnation. And that's in the present time!

Why deny a truth better left unspoken if it is a truth, as opposed to misrepresent the truth. Better to have left it open or unspoken if not untouched.

This gets back to the concept of 'right/true' vs 'wrong/false' as perpetuated by the various religions, and is itself a distortion.

Ohaspe was not a question/answer session.

Precisely. All the more easy to distort! Maybe the author got on a roll and engaged some artistic license.

To pursue the logic one step further in closing, it can hardly be assumed that reincarnation would be considered as anathema to speak of as an infringement of free will, yet even wildly assume that the rest of the information in Ohaspe was less than an infringement in the same breath (one would have to read it to understand this statement) and yet assume that the principle of STO vs STS, which prior to the LOO was never spoken of before, is altogether quite alright.

All the more reason I don't think it was all carefully planned out, but simply allowed to happen.

This simple bit of information radically changes Judeo-Christain-Islamic principles forever, i.e. most of the known world.

Only for those adhering to Judeo-Christain-Islamic principles, very few of whom have likely read the Law of One, so that ends up being irrelevant. Buddhism challenges Judeo-Christain-Islamic principles too, but that doesn't stop people from being Jews/Christians/Muslims. They simply see it as a false teaching, and go on their merry way (if they bother with it at all).

---

So I submit, perhaps the nod to Oahspe in TLOO was distortion. Perhaps it was unitended bad information. And I only submit it as an easier explanation, not necessarily the true, undeniable or final verdict on the matter. And I don't mean to just create an easy way out of a paradox rather than perhaps employ the use of Occam's Razor.

I would also differentiate my use of the word distortion from de-tuning in this case, because the question about Oahspe to Ra, from Don, does not seem like the type of transient or proof based or fear based / conspiracy based questioning that would cause de-tuning of a contact such as Ra's. Distortion here must simply be an unknown percentage of bad connection between Ra and Don via the telepathic exchange, that is inherent to that exchange.. Unless it could be argued that the contact was 100% accurate at all times? Certainly this can't be so.

Well, I could go on speculating, but what do you think?

I think that is a brilliant speculation, Lavazza!

Case in point: I see some variations in spelling of the word. Quantum, who has read all 1000+ pages of the book entitled Oahspe, has referred to it as Ohaspe. This is NOT to nitpick, Quantum, ok? But merely to make a point: If one of us 3D entities, with the very best of intentions, can make a simple spelling error even after seeing the word in front of us at the top of the page for the time it takes to read 1000+ pages of ponderous, deep, and controversial info, then is it such a stretch to think that Ra, communicating via a channel, might also make an occasional mistake? And that such mistakes regarding transient data might be considered as trivial to a SMC as a spelling error is considered to us? Could it even be possible that an errant word 'not' got inserted where it didn't belong, or left out where it should have been? How many of us have completely misunderstood something because of that pesky word 'not' being missing or present erroneously, or missed by our impatiently scanning eyes?