Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

[Account1]

If so, could you please tell me why?

Edit: I don't mean to offend I'm just curious

[isis]

i don't believe in channeling but i do believe that everything is the one infinite creator & that there are no mistakes (& some other things that are mentioned in the Carla material - i mean the Ra material)

do u believe all crop circles are man-made? (i don't)

i believe in aliens 100%

[Account1]

So you subscribe to certain concepts espoused by the new age movement (which the books are associated with) but not the Ra Material itself in it's entirety? Thankyou for your answer, I personally have a quite a large issue with that particular movement which is a rather significant factor in my skepticism regarding these works. I can't say I hold the same beliefs of such transcendent ideas, I have seen too much wasted time and potential to believe such a thing healthy, apparent transcendence often turns into disconnection from reality, but that is an opinion informed by experience that is my own and I don't blame others for not seeing things the same way.

It's interesting that you called it the "Carla material" first, I take it you think the work is a product of an unconscious mind rather than hyper evolved aliens? I'm leaning towards this myself as I do not see a sufficient incentive for a hoax (unless they were just truly sick people) as the people in question do seem earnest in their endeavour, but also naive and suggestible.

As for crop circles and aliens, well it's really not that hard to create a crop circle, it's quite a trivial matter really I see no need to assume entities capable of interstellar spacecraft would do such a thing when it's so easily accomplished with human tools and effort.

I am open to the possibility of extra terrestrial life forms but have seen no credible evidence thus far only conditions which do not make the existence of such things an impossibility ie. the sheer scope of the universe

[Adonai One]

I am open to all of this being a load of bollocks. I am open to living in a atheistic, nihilistic universe. However, I do know The Archetypal Mind as espoused in Book IV (fully deciphered) is a philosophical master piece and can enable bliss in one's life, as well as The Law of One, the belief that everything is acceptable and endurable since all is "the same thing."

This material requires no belief in the unseen to be useful. In fact, the mystical aspects are rather distracting.

[seven]

Short answer: yes.

I was never too interested in the New Age movement. The so called Ra Material caught my attention from the very beginning I found it, but came to me from a whole different route. At that time I was (am still) very fascinated by the Great Pyramid, and the channelings contained thoughts that corresponded with my own thinking. I was not too interested in the more spiritual and metaphysical areas of the text until later, but the echoing thought of "if the things I've read are correct – must not the other bits be true as well?". I've been in your stage of thinking as well, believe me, but I kept returning to the texts, and it always felt correct/true/undistorted and with great depth.

It's the kind material that lays a solid foundation for studying almost any contemporary or historical material – such as new age and various other philosophical or religious texts. Over time things I've read have been falling away, but these and a mere few other books are steady in my bookshelf You wont be wasting your time!

[Account1]

I am an atheist myself but don't you find nihilism a little childish? Anyways, thanks for your input.

To be honest I'm having a hard time regarding the "archetypal mind" stuff in book IV as a "philosophical masterpiece" I am quite well versed in western philosophy and didn't find anything particularly compelling or cohesive, more just bizarre and ambiguous, thus open to the moulding of one's desires. This "fully deciphered" aspect, I have a feeling that due to the transcendent nature of the ideas proposed would be little more than wishful fantasy. But maybe I should look over it again.

The belief that "everything is acceptable"? This is very ambiguous, is this regarding the realm of conscious decisions, an ethical doctrine (if so I wouldn't use the word "everything")? A physical structure will not accept an excess of a certain applied force for example.

I personally am not looking for "use" of the text though I appreciate your sentiment on the matter, I can tell you must have spent a lot of time contemplating the work given your post count so I'm glad to hear your opinion.

I hardly think it lays a "solid foundation" for studying historical or contemporary material, I appreciate your enthusiasm but would you dare cite these books in a university paper? A solid foundation would be the work of the Greek poets and philosophers and documented history supported by primary sources not this book about new age aliens lol.

The gradual evolution of Western conventional wisdom has opened up new avenues for people to pursue "spirituality" but with any novel complexity introduced to a pre-existing system there will inevitably be pathological outcomes at each level of development which, with time will be eroded away. I personally believe the New Age beliefs to be one of these pathological outcomes.

[Adonai One]

http://books.google.com/books?id=28lkBAAAQBAJ

If I may be of assistance in the ambiguity of Book IV, as you claim, here's my attempt at fully deciphering The Archetypal Mind without the use of esoteric vocabulary (it's very plain).

May I say that The Law of One is a trivialist doctrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivialism

[Account1]

Your "deciphering" is interesting but honestly I've spent a lot of time around new agers, and I'm getting that familiar feeling that I'm looking at the product of free association allowed by a cosmic philosophy that does not discriminate fact from fiction rather than transcendental knowledge and insight. No offense intended, and I promise you I will spend more time looking over it. Thankyou for your efforts, really.

Trivialism is by definition cognitive dissonance. A logical absurdity that only exists as an abstraction. If the Law of One is a trivialist doctrine than I'm afraid you have confirmed my doubts.

[Billy]

I'm often troubled by the thought that this material and spirituality in general are just defence mechanisms for coping with the world. Maybe this is all just one big delusion brought on by fear. There is admittedly no proof for any of this.

[Adonai One]

And you should be doubtful, Account1. I don't think this material will be useful to you, at all. This doctrine advocates a complete lack of mental discipline as discipline.

This material as a rational philosophy is useless to 99% of intellectuals. For the religious, it's a free-for-all. This book is bait for a swarm of delusion and denial of reality, that is undeniable.

[Account1]

I'm often troubled by the thought that this material and spirituality in general are just defence mechanisms for coping with the world. Maybe this is all just one big delusion brought on by fear. There is admittedly no proof for any of this.

Fear is a tool to keep us safe, but in my experience and contemplation I find it to be the least worthy of things to base a worldview on.
Spirituality in a more clinical light (the kind I was referring to before when I used the word) is basically a modality of appreciation, the "spiritually" fulfilled individual is not one that dwells in fear but rather honest appreciation for one's own existence. One of the many problems with the incohesive new age movement is that they purport notions that are arguably unhealthy to hold and can very well be a defense against fear or perpetuate fear ie. the fetish of conspiracy theory. I see the arguing for the position of spirituality being an evolutionary product to preserve the species, not only is that a very convenient way of dismissing countless worldviews and past traditions but it doesn't really hold up that well since it's really just an oversimplification given the wealth of data available.

What I am trying to say is that I am sympathetic to those seeking "spiritual fulfillment" but I am not happy to see people adopt possibly unhealthy beliefs, but that is their choice.

[Billy]

I'm often troubled by the thought that this material and spirituality in general are just defence mechanisms for coping with the world. Maybe this is all just one big delusion brought on by fear. There is admittedly no proof for any of this.

Fear is a tool to keep us safe, but in my experience and contemplation I find it to be the least worthy of things to base a worldview on.
Spirituality in a more clinical light (the kind I was referring to before when I used the word) is basically a modality of appreciation, the "spiritually" fulfilled individual is not one that dwells in fear but rather honest appreciation for one's own existence. One of the many problems with the incohesive new age movement is that they purport notions that are arguably unhealthy to hold and can very well be a defense against fear or perpetuate fear ie. the fetish of conspiracy theory. I see the arguing for the position of spirituality being an evolutionary product to preserve the species, not only is that a very convenient way of dismissing countless worldviews and past traditions but it doesn't really hold up that well since it's really just an oversimplification given the wealth of data available.

What I am trying to say is that I am sympathetic to those seeking "spiritual fulfillment" but I am not happy to see people adopt possibly unhealthy beliefs, but that is their choice.

What do you mean by this?

I most definitely agree with you that certain spiritual beliefs can in actual fact be quite damaging (disconnection from reality) and perhaps perpetuate fear. I guess the reason I believe is simply because the idea that all is well as the universe is made out of love, fills me with hope. I find the idea that we are all unconditionally loved and protected a most lovely one. Maybe I'm just weak, I don't know.

[Account1]

What do you mean by this?

I see the arguing for the position of spirituality being an evolutionary product to preserve the species, not only is that a very convenient way of dismissing countless worldviews and past traditions but it doesn't really hold up that well since it's really just an oversimplification given the wealth of data available.

I meant that I see that argument in day to day life amongst my contemporaries and I find it a tad reductionistic. They see spirituality as a product of evolution that has somehow (this bit is often ambiguous or inconsistent) aided in the perpetuation of the species. I am busy with other questions such as why does life wish to perpetuate itself at all to be too involved but I believe there is a percentage (higher than 0%) of truth to that theory it's just that it is too easily wrapped up in a neat little package.
It was added as an anecdote that may have been of interest.

[seven]

I hardly think it lays a "solid foundation" for studying historical or contemporary material, I appreciate your enthusiasm but would you dare cite these books in a university paper? A solid foundation would be the work of the Greek poets and philosophers and documented history supported by primary sources not this book about new age aliens lol.

The actual study of this literature is a great background for studying the "work of the Greek poets and philosophers". Three philosophers in particular are actually highlighted in particular:

There were isolated instances of callings, one such taking place beginning approximately two six zero zero [2,600] of your years in the past in what you would call Greece at this time and resulting in writings and understandings of some facets of the Law of One. We especially note the one known as Thales and the one known as Heraclitus, those being of the philosopher career, as you may call it, teaching their students. We also point out the understandings of the one known as Pericles.

As for the question if I would "dare cite these books in a university paper"; to write a university paper is not the intent for my learning. It's rather to grow as an individual and gain a deeper understanding of myself and my surroundings. Peace

[Account1]

As for the question if I would "dare cite these books in a university paper"; to write a university paper is not the intent for my learning. It's rather to grow as an individual and gain a deeper understanding of myself and my surroundings. Peace

Fair enough, I myself am just trying to ascertain truth so if a text purports to contain cosmic truth than I am going to analyze it honestly and with a moderate amount of effort rather than just accept as fact it if it potentially holds a substantial amount of falsity. I find many people have no problems adopting beliefs that flatter them or make them feel "good" and are less likely to bother with an honest evaluation. This text is guilty of offering these kind of ideas so I am forced to be more skeptical than usual, I apologize if this upsets you.

The actual study of this literature is a great background for studying the "work of the Greek poets and philosophers". Three philosophers in particular are actually highlighted in particular:

We're going to have to disagree on that one I'm afraid.

I most definitely agree with you that certain spiritual beliefs can in actual fact be quite damaging (disconnection from reality) and perhaps perpetuate fear. I guess the reason I believe is simply because the idea that all is well as the universe is made out of love, fills me with hope. I find the idea that we are all unconditionally loved and protected a most lovely one. Maybe I'm just weak, I don't know.

I doubt that you are "weak" a weak person wouldn't believe in love.

[seven]

Fair enough, I myself am just trying to ascertain truth so if a text purports to contain cosmic truth than I am going to analyze it honestly and with a moderate amount of effort rather than just accept as fact it if it potentially holds a substantial amount of falsity. I find many people have no problems adopting beliefs that flatter them or make them feel "good" and are less likely to bother with an honest evaluation. This text is guilty of offering these kind of ideas so I am forced to be more skeptical than usual, I apologize if this upsets you.

I feel you are talking about a different thing than what I was adressing. I agree with you on this point, I think this is natural for us We need more honesty in this world, directed both internally and externally.

[Account1]

I was, it's totally cool that you want to learn about yourself, I was just trying to establish a little context for my position so that discussion can flow. I do not desire you all to think I just think you are dumb for believing in advanced aliens who altered the course of human history so that we have "ur dumb" "no u" with nothing learned on either side. I want you all to know that I am being honest here and am interested in your perspectives on this text.

[Guardian]

You shall know the truth when you see it.

[seven]

I was, it's totally cool that you want to learn about yourself, I was just trying to establish a little context for my position so that discussion can flow. I do not desire you all to think I just think you are dumb for believing in advanced aliens who altered the course of human history so that we have "ur dumb" "no u" with nothing learned on either side. I want you all to know that I am being honest here and am interested in your perspectives on this text.

I feel you.

I believe a good method for navigation through information is to read a variety of material. This has been my way of study, it gave me perspective to overlay materials on each other to reveal truth from falsity.

Sidenote: be aware that it is merely your projections of how the users on this forum will react Peace

[Account1]

The thing is, that's what I have done and I am not convinced at all of the Law of One. I have read the thing and other similar texts and can see how such things emerge from the mind but that doesn't mean that they have any basis in in reality.


As I've repeatedly stated my distrust of the new age movement I may as well give you some reasons why

In my observations of generic new agers I have seen the following. Honestly I have seen this so many times it's not even funny. These are the general stages:

1. The self congratulatory self appointed title of "seeker", variations include "truth seeker" and "awake" (as opposed to the "sleeping" aka people who do not hold the same beliefs), as the individual progresses on this journey they will eventually label themselves with many identities (you would think the spiritually enlightened would have found themselves) my personal fav was guy who called himself "the lantern bearer" shining light the world lol.

2. A certain excitement at having widened one's scope of what could be conceived to be possible sweeps over the individual which often results in them becoming a slave to their own imagination as the fantasies they entertain are suddenly much more plausible given that the individual now believes that anything is possible or everything is true. This allows for rampant escapism which is essentially regression.

3. The individual feels that the thoughts they stumble upon are now cosmic insights that need to be shared with the world as they are now "awake" and have a moral duty to enlighten others.

4. The individual slowly becomes more and more dissociated, drunk on the belief that they are witness to a transcendental experience of existence, common experience gets interpreted through magical thinking which fuels the fantasy which fuels the dissociation. The individual withdraws more and more into themselves and their own constructed little world.

5. Everyone else is wrong apart from them and the ideas they concocted without any feedback since others are trapped in the material maze. The dismissal of the scientific method occasionally happens but I've seen just as many people try and twist scientific discovery to suit their transcendent agenda, these people almost never understand science.

That's why I consider the notions found in the Ra Material not only to be false but also dangerous since it is conducive to this kind of behaviour...

Anyways, I am still very open to discussion.

[seven]

I have read the thing and other similar texts and can see how such things emerge from the mind but that doesn't mean that they have any basis in in reality.

I'll stay focused on this material. No of course, thoughts can speak of truth as well as they can deceive. It's up to you to listen to what rings true or false. I think a big part of life is walking through biases, behaviours and thoughts, to discern what we feel is true to us and leave behind that which doesn't feel right.

[native]

The Ra Material is certainly an interesting puzzle. Many of us would agree with what you listed in relation to the new age mindset, but, mirrors are everywhere aren't they? If you look at zen buddhism or taoism, those belief systems ultimately point to the heart, where an enlightened person would never consider themselves enlightened..in the sense that it's understood that there isn't such a thing as awake versus asleep..and that the truth is a feeling of unconditional love in the moment.

I feel that this is what Ra was essentially trying to express..they were zen buddhists! Yet our seeking to place things within a cosmic framework leads to distraction and unnecessary details, a necessary journey ironically (which by the way was initiated by the group asking all sorts of questions), but ultimately I think they were trying to impart a simple message. But they were also trying to express the symbolic nature of reality and our power within to function magically, which I believe to be real by way of my own experiences.

[Matt1]

The general high quality of the material resonated with me enough to fully believe in it. There isn't any conscious doubt in the material for me.
I consider most channeling to be fairly poor in the level of information, the Law of One is a rare gem indeed.

I have also greatly enjoyed the physics behind the Law of One through David Wilcock's material.

That being said i have also been interested in UFOs and the paranormal from a young age.

[Unbound]

“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

I do not believe in anything and I believe in everything. The Ra material is a well from which to draw inspiration as all works are according to the intelligence of their crafting. Some areas I continue to come back to, others I have barely glanced at. No material in and of itself should ever be believed but rather belief should be formulated around what is consistent and coherent.

[isis]

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=2452

[ricdaw]

I came to the Ra Material relatively late in my spiritual studies. And I found the first three books to be interesting and internally consistent, but not necessarily capable of being proven true. But it was Book Four that captured my attention. Ra claimed to be the insipration for the original Egyptian tarot cards. Now I am pretty familiar with tarot so this was intriguing to me. The studied literature did not support the thesis that the Egyptian versions of the cards preceeded the "western" version that I used, and certainly not by centuries. So I read with interest as Ra described what the cards were for, and what individual cards "meant."

I was astonished. Even when Don didn't understand what Ra was talking about (the Hierophant card, in particular) the information and the pictures were a brilliant and coherent whole. No mainstream tarot publication anywhere describes the meanings for these cards in this way. I have looked (and continue to look) in every tarot book I come across.

If Carla was making this stuff up (or more accuately, if her subconscious was making it up) then it was one of the most remarkable creative reimagining of tarot ever recorded. It was thoroughly original, internally consistent, and as it is described it does make an integrated whole that dovetails with the text in the preceeding three books.

If I am satisfied that the information in Book Four about the tarot, as a practical matter, is not something that can be generated by Carla's subconscious while in trance, and I am convinced of its brilliance and consistent interlocking conceptual framework, then what am I supposed to think about matters peripheral to the tarot?

It's only a tiny step to acknowedge that Carla must be channeling the people who designed/inspired the tarot. Well, that leads to accepting the existence of ETs because that's who they said they were. (It would no less remarkable if Carla was telepthically getting the data from someone else here on Earth, but that is not the narrative.)

And that first step leads to the claim that these ETs were mucking around in Egypt thousands of years ago. Hmmm. Where do I draw the line here? I accept that the source for the tarot information is ET, but should I discount their claim to their participating in ancient Egypt? Okay, I'll take another tiny step.

Boy, they sure seemed to know a lot about that Great Pyramid. I've been in it and felt first hand the energies (muted though they be at this time).

So could it be there is a Confederation?

And does that mean there is an opposing force too (Orion Group)?

This all gets to be a long slippery slope and it comes down to a matter of personal discernment and comfort about how far down you go. Since I do not expect to need to use the Ra Material information for any life or death decisions, or even for more mundane ones like where to live or what job to have, it doesn't hurt to slide pretty far down and buy into the more tenuous and unprovable assertions.

So, I believe in Book Four and the tarot discussions without reservations. I hold the information, knowledge and suggestions of the other books in mind as I go about my life. I am open to having the information proven true. It is a kind and inspiring philosophy that cannot be twisted into any kind of belligerence or war (of either hearts, minds or bodies). I would not be remotely surprised to find that it is true.

[AnthroHeart]

I've recently taken up pendulum dowsing for a more objective view of the Ra material, to help me verify it at points. So far I've only asked about densities and octaves.

[Parsons]

My friend, I highly recommend you read the analysis of the Ra Material contained within the website http://we-are-1.net. It is an extremely good (and long) analysis of the material from someone who is very left-brained/logically/scientifically oriented.

To answer the OP, yes, I believe this stuff. I was an extremely left-brained atheist from 6-25 years of age with a very strong propensity towards understanding the way the world and the universe works (scientifically and anthropologically).

Because I constantly tried seeing things in the 'big picture', I had an emotional crisis partially due to not understanding how the world could end up this 'f***** up'.

I stumbled on the Ra Material in a Google search and was enthralled in the system of reality presented which I found to make more logical sense than my atheistic viewpoint. I was shocked how the much larger worldview contained therein explained the slight logical inconsistencies in my previous worldview and encompased the few things I agreed with in religion.

To this day, I still don't buy into any major religion as I still agree with atheists when they point out that things such as "thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife" are clearly an attempt by authorities to control society. However, I do pick and choose certain philosophies from major religions (eg 'forgive them for they know not what they do') and for the most part no longer feel uncomfortable around and despise religious people.

[Nicholas]

Yes 100%

It would be a lengthy essay to detail why though and is anecdotal anyway.

I don't align this philosophy or Carla's channelling history with the new age stuff though. That seems like fluffy dogma to me. I also enjoy connecting scientific observations with metaphysical ones.

For example E=MC2 according to Stephen Hawkins and Brian Cox (world stage physicists) simplify this equation to mean that matter is a type of energy (physical) and energy is a type of matter (non physical).

There are 2 main options in deciding for your self that I can think of.

1st is the sensible and safest way where you practise meditation regularly until you have gained mastery over your own mind. Where you have a thoughtless space within your conscious mind instead of the routine reverberations (aka monkey chatter) of whatever runs through it at any given time.

2nd is the riskier 'bullet train' method where you responsibly research and seek out DMT (aka spirit molecule) or Ayahuasca (containing DMT). Both have mind altering effects. Graham Hancock is a good place to start. Terrence Mckenna is another great source, both of whom have numerous video's on you tube.

The best opinion after all is the contemplation of your own personal experience!

[Cosmo23]

... was enthralled in the system of reality presented which I found to make more logical sense than my atheistic viewpoint...

I would add that for me its more a model of reality which is per definition not perfect. But like in science models are useful to understand connections and processes.

Since you mentioned university papers, cognitive disorder and magical thinking I assume you have a psychological background. Im curious what your model of reality is.