Ra material is not the Law of One

[Monica]

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.

I've often stated that one of my friends, who is 100% Bible-believing Christian, understands the Law of One better than most people I know who actually study the Ra Material. He has managed to discover the Law of One in his chosen religion, despite the distortion of his chosen 'holy' book. He is a shining example of how the Law of One isn't any book.

The confusion may arise because the title of the Ra Material in book form is The Law of One. So oftentimes, when we are quoting the Ra Material, we refer to it as The Law of One because that's the title of the books. I've done this myself many times. Although it was clear in my mind and, presumably, clear in most people's minds, I can see now how referring to it that way might have been confusing for some.

Thank you for pointing this out. It might be a good idea for all of us to refer to the books as The Ra Material, in the future, to distinguish it from The Law of One.

---

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?

Ra took great care regarding semantics, to the point that their choice of words ended up being cumbersome for some to read, in their efforts to minimize distortion.

As students of the Law of One, it would behoove us to do likewise when discussing the material, especially when there is potential for confusion, such as the name of the book being the same as the philosophical concept itself. It might not be clear to everyone. Already one person has expressed gratitude at the increased clarity, just in this thread so far.

---

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".

---

Ah, I just said the same thing, before reading your post.