06-13-2017, 09:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-13-2017, 11:15 PM by morgan.thomas.
Edit Reason: minor clarification
)
Hello Garry,
Thank you for the welcome, and thank you for the excellent feedback on my work. Here are some responses your feedback inspired me to write.
/ /
This was a thought provoking statement to me. I agree that one should not turn the Ra material into a "justification platform." To avoid that, I see it as important to make it reasonably easy for the reader to tell what parts of what I'm saying are restatements of what Ra has said, and what parts are my personal opinions.
If I were to say explicitly what things are restatements of Ra and what are my personal opinions, what I'd be offering would be my opinions on the question of which is which. That's not really what the reader needs.
I think what the reader needs is for me to cite relevant portions of Ra whenever I'm making a claim based on Ra. That assists them in deciding for themselves what's a restatement of Ra and what's my opinion, if they want to do that. I haven't added all the requisite citations yet, but this is a planned part of the project.
I'm curious about anybody's thoughts and reactions on what has been said on this question, of how to avoid using Ra inappropriately as a "justification platform" for one's own thoughts.
I agree. I'm going to respond by clarifying my positions and views in the area of this comment. I don't know what significance any of this may bear to anybody. I'm not assuming any of this needs to be said.
I have been seeking spiritually as well as studying over the years I mentioned. How undistorted a grasp I've obtained in my mind/body/spirit complex of the Law of One or the teachings of Ra is hard for me to say.
I'm not claiming to have a highly undistorted internal understanding of the teachings of Ra. Such a claim would need to be relative to somebody else, and I have no good way to compare the quality of my internal understanding to that of any reader.
I'm just offering some words: a big exercise in the use of language and logic which hopes to be a teach/learning tool in the Law of One. I don't think my words would convey my own internal understanding of the Law of One to the reader, though. I think they would convey to the reader whatever the reader imagined into them.
My hope is that these sequences of words cause thoughts in readers which benefit them. To what extent that occurs surely has something to do with the quality of the internal understanding on which I based the words. But it doesn't seem to require the quality of my internal understanding to be a knowable factor. I'm not presenting my internal understanding to this group for scrutiny and feedback, because I haven't learned any way to convey my internal understanding to another. I'm just presenting to this group a bunch of words, and soliciting scrutiny and feedback about the words.
/ /
I appreciate the distinction inherent / exherent, as opposed to exoteric / esoteric. I think it's a good idea to present that distinction. I hadn't teased apart these two distinctions, and your comments helped me to get the distinction between the distinctions. I am thinking I will add inherent / exherent to the text.
/ /
I like your distinction between mediated and unmediated magic.
Let me try to summarize what you're saying to see if I understand. You're saying that mediated magic is magic that is mediated by another consciously individuated entity. From your examples, it seems like the idea is that in mediated magic, you're not in direct contact with the energies you're putting into motion. Rather, you're causing the energy to be put into motion by calling for the assistance of another entity. You are saying that the great majority of magic done on Earth is mediated magic.
I wonder if you would consider meditation and the transformations of self resulting from it to be an example of unmediated magic, as opposed to mediated magic. I am inclined to classify self-transformation through meditation as an example of unmediated magic, done on the self by the self. More broadly, it seems to me like any magic which an individual produces through their own natural faculties would be an example of unmediated magic. However, I would think that unmediated magic would not be terribly rare in third density if one agrees with everything else in this paragraph.
There is potentially a disagreement here, about how common unmediated magic is in 3d. I'm curious about the source of disagreement. Terminological difference? Difference of opinion? You wish to revise your thoughts? Something else going on?
/ /
I have enjoyed responding to your comment. Thank you for sharing your teachings with me, in the form of feedback on my teachings!
Love and light,
Morgan
Thank you for the welcome, and thank you for the excellent feedback on my work. Here are some responses your feedback inspired me to write.
/ /
Quote:By it's nature, the Ra Material is a highly undistorted text, and despite the inspiration that it brings to many people, it equally requires an undistorted mind to grasp it's Understandings, without turning it into a 'justification platorm' for one's own current predilections.
This was a thought provoking statement to me. I agree that one should not turn the Ra material into a "justification platform." To avoid that, I see it as important to make it reasonably easy for the reader to tell what parts of what I'm saying are restatements of what Ra has said, and what parts are my personal opinions.
If I were to say explicitly what things are restatements of Ra and what are my personal opinions, what I'd be offering would be my opinions on the question of which is which. That's not really what the reader needs.
I think what the reader needs is for me to cite relevant portions of Ra whenever I'm making a claim based on Ra. That assists them in deciding for themselves what's a restatement of Ra and what's my opinion, if they want to do that. I haven't added all the requisite citations yet, but this is a planned part of the project.
I'm curious about anybody's thoughts and reactions on what has been said on this question, of how to avoid using Ra inappropriately as a "justification platform" for one's own thoughts.
Quote:That is: can one actually see what is being conveyed, rather than seeing what wants to see. That is the nature of study, and, I think, we all desire to move closer to the original intentions; myself included.
I agree. I'm going to respond by clarifying my positions and views in the area of this comment. I don't know what significance any of this may bear to anybody. I'm not assuming any of this needs to be said.
I have been seeking spiritually as well as studying over the years I mentioned. How undistorted a grasp I've obtained in my mind/body/spirit complex of the Law of One or the teachings of Ra is hard for me to say.
I'm not claiming to have a highly undistorted internal understanding of the teachings of Ra. Such a claim would need to be relative to somebody else, and I have no good way to compare the quality of my internal understanding to that of any reader.
I'm just offering some words: a big exercise in the use of language and logic which hopes to be a teach/learning tool in the Law of One. I don't think my words would convey my own internal understanding of the Law of One to the reader, though. I think they would convey to the reader whatever the reader imagined into them.
My hope is that these sequences of words cause thoughts in readers which benefit them. To what extent that occurs surely has something to do with the quality of the internal understanding on which I based the words. But it doesn't seem to require the quality of my internal understanding to be a knowable factor. I'm not presenting my internal understanding to this group for scrutiny and feedback, because I haven't learned any way to convey my internal understanding to another. I'm just presenting to this group a bunch of words, and soliciting scrutiny and feedback about the words.
/ /
I appreciate the distinction inherent / exherent, as opposed to exoteric / esoteric. I think it's a good idea to present that distinction. I hadn't teased apart these two distinctions, and your comments helped me to get the distinction between the distinctions. I am thinking I will add inherent / exherent to the text.
/ /
I like your distinction between mediated and unmediated magic.
Let me try to summarize what you're saying to see if I understand. You're saying that mediated magic is magic that is mediated by another consciously individuated entity. From your examples, it seems like the idea is that in mediated magic, you're not in direct contact with the energies you're putting into motion. Rather, you're causing the energy to be put into motion by calling for the assistance of another entity. You are saying that the great majority of magic done on Earth is mediated magic.
I wonder if you would consider meditation and the transformations of self resulting from it to be an example of unmediated magic, as opposed to mediated magic. I am inclined to classify self-transformation through meditation as an example of unmediated magic, done on the self by the self. More broadly, it seems to me like any magic which an individual produces through their own natural faculties would be an example of unmediated magic. However, I would think that unmediated magic would not be terribly rare in third density if one agrees with everything else in this paragraph.
There is potentially a disagreement here, about how common unmediated magic is in 3d. I'm curious about the source of disagreement. Terminological difference? Difference of opinion? You wish to revise your thoughts? Something else going on?
/ /
I have enjoyed responding to your comment. Thank you for sharing your teachings with me, in the form of feedback on my teachings!
Love and light,
Morgan