Ra's Adventures in Wonderland

[Tenet Nosce]

When Alice went tumbling down the rabbit-hole into Wonderland, she entered a world of opposites. A world where that which was previously unified, became split into seeming dualities.

Like Alice, we have tumbled down the rabbit hole into Wonderland. The social memory complex known as Ra is not in Wonderland. Thus our conundrum.

It amuses me to observe, at this particular stage of the game, certain misconceptions about the Ra Material still doing loopty-loops around some of our communications. Of course, these are misconceptions according to my perception, which from a vantage point here in Wonderland, appears limited and fallible.

Nevertheless, I would like to share my fallible opinions on a few things. I offer them in, what I believe to be, the true spirit of service. I seek with this thread to "catch those who stumble and set them aright so that they may continue into the light."

I no longer wish to argue about these fallible opinions, or do I care about proving myself right. If the reader determines my opinions to be merely a further stumbling block, then I would ask them to discard these words and seek according to their own inner guidance.

Let us begin at the beginning:

Questioner: [Do you have a specific purpose, and if so, could you tell us something of what your purpose is?]

Ra: I am Ra. We communicate now. We, too, have our place. We are not those of the Love or of the Light. We are those who are of the Law of One. In our vibration the polarities are harmonized, the complexities are simplified, and the paradoxes have their solution. We are one. That is our nature and our purpose.

Ra has their place. This means Ra's place is not here, in Wonderland, with the rest of us. Here in Wonderland, we perceive Love and Light as two different, and sometimes quite contrary, things. In Ra's place, Love and Light are perceived as One Thing. This is why they are those of the Law of One.

In their vibration, the polarities are harmonized. This is not to say the polarities are nonexistent. This is to say the polarities are harmonized. In Ra's place, Oneness and Unity may not appear as complex as they may to us here in Wonderland. Thus, here in Wonderland, Oneness and Unity are perceived by us as Free Will.

Ra's place is where paradoxes are (dis)solved in the knowledge that They are One. Oneness, or unity, is their purpose, because that is Who they Are.

Oneness is not sameness. Unity is not uniformity. Sameness and uniformity are subsets of oneness and unity. That is to say, oneness and unity may be observed independent of sameness and uniformity. However, sameness and uniformity may not be observed independent of oneness and unity. Thus sameness and uniformity do not display Free Will.

Questioner: (The question was lost because the questioner was sitting too far from the tape recorder to be recorded.)

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

May we enunciate this law in more detail?

Because Ra is One, they are the universe, and they are infinite. Just as we are the universe, and we are infinite. There is no end to ourselves. Which means that everything in the universe is us. Including Ra. Because we are infinite, there is no other. Only we exist in this infinite universe of Oneness and Unity.

Since we are infinite, we cannot be many. Many-ness is a finite concept that does not apply to us and Ra. This means there is only one of us here. Right here, in Wonderland, in this very forum. We communicate now.

To have infinity, it must be defined as unity. Since unity and oneness are identified, that means oneness is infinity. Therefore we are the One Infinite Creator, now observing ourselves as through a prism (The Looking Glass), and appearing to be here in Wonderland.

In truth there is no right and wrong. What this means is: In truth, there is no right and wrong. It does not mean that at certain time/spaces and space/times there are right and wrong, and at other space/times and time/spaces there are NOT right and wrong. What it means is that which appears, here in Wonderland, to be right and wrong is- in truth- infinitely unified, harmonized, and reconciled.

Right and wrong are not in truth. They are illusions. This is because, here in Wonderland, things like right and wrong appear to be as opposites. In Ra's place, they are not opposites, but simplified and (dis)solved in Oneness, Unity, and Infinity.

In Ra's place, the polarities, or opposites, are harmonized and reconciled by means of a motion, or dance, called the social memory complex. At some point, which we teach/learn as The Choice, these seeming polarities are harmonized and reconciled by means of a dance called the mind/body/spirit complex.

In order to perceive us, the One Infinite Creator, as social memory complex and mind/body/spirit complex, we must realize (to dwell upon and make our reality) that place where the polarities are harmonized and reconciled and the paradoxes (re)solved. That place did not become Wonderland. And Wonderland will not become that place.

Apparently, we have become amused by distortion, here in Wonderland. However, it is not at all necessary to be amusing ourselves with distortions of polarity, here in Wonderland. Since the universe is infinite, then the universe is One. Wonderland is finite, because it is bound by distortions of polarity. It is thereby an illusion (false light) by which we, the One Infinite Creator, appear to ourselves as polarized and separated as if through The Looking Glass.

We have chosen to perceive ourselves in Wonderland as an amusing alternative to our true identity as the One Infinite Creator. Therefore, we who do not perceive ourselves as amused () are not communicating our true nature and purpose.

There is only One of us here. That means there are no entities or things which are other. We are One. There is no other. There is nothing to be served but ourselves. And we are infinitely serving ourselves, the One Infinite Creator.

We are every thing. We are every being. We are every emotion. We are every event. We are every situation. We are unity. We are infinity.

We are love/light, light/love. We are not those of the Love or of the Light. We are those who are of the Law of One.

May we enunciate this law in more detail? This is our final query.

[GentleReckoning]

Fantastic post. I'm always surprised that a basic summary of the Law of One is not actually included in the Law of One.

In this same vein, jealousy becomes completely superfluous as anything that you desire to experience will at some point in your progression be available for you to experience.

Say that you desire to drive the redesigned Ford GT. At some point in your realization of your oneness with all you will be able to directly recall every single instance of someone interacting with said vehicle.

If in some dark part of your heart you want to be the one to pull the switch on an apparatus that floods a room with gas, killing men women and children.... that too will be available.

So, jealousy is simply illogical. As we are one, we experience all.

[AnthroHeart]

I like what you said GR about being able to directly recall every single instance of someone interacting with said vehicle. So we experience what every single point in the Universe experiences, at any moment in time. That's fantastic.
Perhaps I'll really be able to experience firsthand my own thoughts in a physical environment. That would be nice too.

[native]

Yes, very good elaboration. Is there a personal point or opinion you'd like to add? I feel like you're trying to say something but haven't said it.

[Tenet Nosce]

Yes, very good elaboration. Is there a personal point or opinion you'd like to add? I feel like you're trying to say something but haven't said it.

I'd rather have it come from within as in like a satori moment. Otherwise egos tend to get in the way. Including my own.

I'll leave it at this. In my opinion, everything else in the Ra Material needs must be interpreted in the context of these two quotes. There are many ideas floating around, some which have even appeared to have gained consensus among LOO students at times, which rather fly in the face of what Ra said here, right in their opening session.

Everything else Ra says in the material relates directly back to these points, which are the centerpieces of their philosophy. What could be more central than the statement of their nature and purpose? Ra did not suddenly change their philosophy in the middle of Session 17 or Session 63. Ra did not make these statements here with the intention of contradicting themselves later on, or making exceptions for certain circumstances. Ra was not confused by themselves here.

Ra was perfectly and unequivocally clear about their philosophy right here in Session One. Frankly, there isn't much more to say about it. If somebody doesn't agree with what Ra said here, that's totally fine. We are free to choose a different perspective. But let's stop trying to "creatively interpret" their words in order to conform with our own philosophies.

[native]

Well, my mind is given contradictory thoughts by what was said in the material, and so I sometimes find the "path" that is apparently being encouraged incomprehensible. I simply don't understand what is the ultimate loving act in the moment when trying to put it together with the intellect. So perhaps that's the point. The one thing that I'm certain of, is that in each entity there is completeness, so if something bothers me, I try to see that completeness.

I can agree with what you're feeling. Beingness.

[Bring4th_Austin]

An interesting piece of trivia, since I interpret your unstated point to draw upon holding the rest of the Ra material up to the light of these quotes, is that the first session, where these quotes are from, was not transmitted in the same trance state as the rest of the material.

Take from that what you will.

[Tenet Nosce]

my mind is given contradictory thoughts by what was said in the material

That's very interesting! I don't find the material to be contradictory, though depending on the particular light of interpretation, it can be at times ambiguous. Which is why I defer to these opening statements in order to determine how to construe some of the later quotes.

An interesting piece of trivia, since I interpret your unstated point to draw upon holding the rest of the Ra material up to the light of these quotes, is that the first session, where these quotes are from, was not transmitted in the same trance state as the rest of the material.

Take from that what you will.

Thanks for pointing that out, as it had momentarily slipped my mind. Fascinating, isn't it? Despite the lack of the trance state, or walking the circle I might add, I can find no fault with the philosophy they describe in that first part of Session One. There were, however, other inconveniences...

[Patrick]

I'm sure that Ra is gleeful when someone dismisses part of the material because they do not resonate with it. Ra does not want to distort us any further.

[native]

That's very interesting! I don't find the material to be contradictory, though depending on the particular light of interpretation, it can be at times ambiguous. Which is why I defer to these opening statements in order to determine how to construe some of the later quotes.

This feeling of mine is mostly stirred up when one focuses on learning from others. Balance becomes infinitely subtle.

"In the case of Wanderers there are half-forgotten overlays of other lessons and other densities."

Even though I no longer label myself a wanderer, and prefer to leave it as a mystery, there is enough guidance left out to cause confusion. One problem with the material is that there are questions I have based on statements made, but clearing them up is not possible.

Also, Ra was teaching to the group. Don = Power, Carla = Love, Jim = Wisdom. I don't know what Don and Carla's level of development was at the time. How balanced were they? What was their understanding? Luckily Jim had eastern knowledge, and that comes through. It's said that most adepts aren't even awake, yet some of us came to the material with relative balance and a unified understanding, so perhaps I read too much into the statements. I've been trying to focus on living in harmony, rather than thinking about everything too much.

[Patrick]

This is how I see it.

Don = Truth, Carla = Service, Jim = Beauty

[native]

That works too..a good way to put it.

[Tenet Nosce]

I'm sure that Ra is gleeful when someone dismisses part of the material because they do not resonate with it. Ra does not want to distort us any further.

In my estimation, Ra probably wouldn't know one way or the other. Or particularly care if they did.

If there is distortion present upon reading the material, then the reader is the source of the distortion. If the reader embraces the philosophy given in the material, then the reader would notice the distortion, and seek to lessen it. I propose one way to lessen this distortion would be to reconcile it with the ideas put forth in the above quotes.

It is certainly fine to merely put something aside that doesn't make sense at the time, and/or align with the intuition. No harm, no foul there.

But when one actually seeks to creatively reinterpret the material in order to conform to their own distortions- to the point of assigning alternative connotations to terminology used by Ra and then arguing in the forum that their own distorted view is actually what Ra really meant- that is a disservice IMO.

This increases the distortion all around, and I see little purpose in it other than to protect the ego from having to admit that it read something into the material that wasn't really there.

Rather than say... Ra says X, and I disagree and believe Y (totally fine), some will go through great lengths to argue that Ra actually said Y, and not X. I'm sure this, too, is all part of the process. But being a distortion, it is not at all necessary.

To draw an analogy from Law, in general, there are many laws on the books which are accompanied by statements of intent and purpose which are meant to guide interpretation, and prevent the judicial system from taking creative license with the laws and reinterpreting them to mean something which they are not.

Similarly, I would propose that Ra's statements of their nature and purpose should act as similar guidelines in cases of potential discrepancy in interpretation.

Ra's nature and purpose did not change during the course of the work. Thus it is a constant which can be used as a yardstick. Don, Carla, and Jim are all human beings, and thus their ability and effectiveness at offering sound queries, a clear channel, and ample battery power can vary greatly from session to session.

Or even within the same session. Session One would be a great example of this. Jim wasn't even present at the beginning, and walked in with groceries causing a distraction just as Ra said "May we enunciate this law in more detail." The tape recorder was poorly placed, and later part of the Session One was actually recorded over. Don chose to query about the "coming planetary changes" (thus making an assumption in the query that they were inevitably coming). And poor Carla was just trying to contain her own surprise at what was going on!

[Brittany]

Rather than say... Ra says X, and I disagree and believe Y (totally fine), some will go through great lengths to argue that Ra actually said Y, and not X. I'm sure this, too, is all part of the process. But being a distortion, it is not at all necessary.

I agree with this in part. If you disagree with the material, have the balls to say so instead of trying to twist it around to match your own opinions. That just shows you don't actually know what you believe and are clinging to a security blanket.

On the other hand, I would ask who gets the privilege of making the *correct* interpretation of the Ra Material, or any other document? Another person might literally, through their own perspective, see a passage as saying something entirely different from what another sees there, and since we don't have Ra on hand to clarify any questions, no one can say with 100% certainty that any personal opinion derived from the material is true or false.

So basically, the reality of what the true motive is can only be discerned from within. In my experience, once you truly understand yourself, the need to prove the correctness of your own beliefs fades and the opinions of others become interesting instead of threatening. And should you come upon a distortion in your thoughts, it can simply be analyzed and cleared for greater truth to flow through- a painless process. Every time I see someone vehemently fighting to prove a point I can't help but think they're trying to prove it to themselves more than anyone else.

[Patrick]

...In my experience, once you truly understand yourself, the need to prove the correctness of your own beliefs fades and the opinions of others become interesting...

So true, I got a big fat reminder of this today.

Thank you my friend for mirroring this so clearly in words.

[Tenet Nosce]

I would ask who gets the privilege of making the *correct* interpretation of the Ra Material, or any other document?

The author does. In this case Ra. Which part of my post are you disagreeing with?

Another person might literally, through their own perspective, see a passage as saying something entirely different from what another sees there, and since we don't have Ra on hand to clarify any questions, no one can say with 100% certainty that any personal opinion derived from the material is true or false.

We have 1.1 and 1.6 to clarify. Do you take issue to the restatement of these in the OP? Or are you just speaking in general here?

We also have 1.9. For example, Ra says:

Firstly, you must understand that the distinction between yourself and others is not visible to us.

This is a very clear, plain English, type of declaration. Therefore, any personal opinions that are positing that Ra actually DOES see a real distinction between self and other is in direct conflict with this statement.

Again, one can certainly say that Ra is incorrect in their view. But there is no valid argument to be made as to what their view actually is. Thus, any following statements in the material about "self" and "other" are to be interpreted in the light of Ra's clear and unequivocal statement in 1.9. Which means that these two terms, self and other, are entirely interchangeable as far as the Law of One is concerned.

In fact, the assertion that there is no true distinction between "self" and "other" is merely a restatement of the Law of One, itself. Therefore any philosophy or opinion which presupposes such a distinction is, by definition, NOT the Law of One.

In my experience, once you truly understand yourself, the need to prove the correctness of your own beliefs fades and the opinions of others become interesting instead of threatening. And should you come upon a distortion in your thoughts, it can simply be analyzed and cleared for greater truth to flow through- a painless process. Every time I see someone vehemently fighting to prove a point I can't help but think they're trying to prove it to themselves more than anyone else.

My experience agrees with your own. I've noticed much less of a need/want/desire to engage in proving points within myself as time goes on, and more of my own points have been proven wrong through experience.

However, that being said, much of my point-proving in the past has been centered around restating what Ra actually said, especially in noting the tendency to jump right into the forum without having first read the material, as is specifically requested in the guidelines. Not trying to impose my own interpretation of what Ra said onto others. Wherein I have made an interpretation, it is stated as an opinion.

The motive of this is to serve newer members to understand what it is that Ra actually said, and to lessen the propensity to become confused by certain dogma which has been built up around what Ra said, which are actually in direct contradiction to it, but yet being presented as if they are in congruence with it.

[βαθμιαίος]

The author does. In this case Ra.

As Austin pointed out, session one was not in trance, so Carla should probably get some of the credit, too.

...certain dogma which has been built up around what Ra said, which are actually in direct contradiction to it, but yet being presented as if they are in congruence with it.

What are you thinking of in particular?

[Patrick]

...

...certain dogma which has been built up around what Ra said, which are actually in direct contradiction to it, but yet being presented as if they are in congruence with it.

What are you thinking of in particular?

There is dogma that came out of the Ra material? I too would like to know what it is.

[Tenet Nosce]

Oh come now, you guys all know what I am talking about, because each of you who asked have challenged these ideas at multiple times, in multiple contexts. (They have a habit of popping up again and again.) I can only assume that is because you all have actually read the material, rather than skimming over it and projecting your own preconceptions into it.

Maybe dogma was a poor word choice. Let's just keep it at distortion.

I'm not trying to play coy with anybody. It's just that my intention for this thread is for it to be centered around what Ra DID say, rather than about what Ra DID NOT say. And perhaps to consider the proposition that, in cases of perceived ambiguity, it would be wise to defer to Ra's self-stated "nature and purpose" given in Session One.

There also appears to be some concern that I am trying to set myself up as an authority here. Not at all. If anybody else would like to take a crack at restating 1.1 and 1.6 in their own terms, I'm all ears! (Or rather, eyes.)

[Patrick]

...
Maybe dogma was a poor word choice. Let's just keep it at distortion.
...

Ah yes, I see what you mean.

Indeed words are distortions themselves...

[βαθμιαίος]

Oh come now, you guys all know what I am talking about, because each of you who asked have challenged these ideas at multiple times, in multiple contexts. (They have a habit of popping up again and again.)

I'm still curious what ideas you're thinking of. I know you want to focus on what Ra did say, but Ra did say a LOT of things. It sounds like you're thinking of one or two specific incorrect claims that keep getting made that contradict the message of unity. I'm honestly not sure what those would be.

[Tenet Nosce]

Oh, alright. I will try. But please keep in mind that I will be paraphrasing, and perhaps conflating different incorrect claims in the process. Also, I want to be clear that I see little value in trying to assign which incorrect claims belong to which people. This is because people's ideas can, do and have evolved with time.

Confusion is part of the process. I suppose my "gripe" is when those who are confused speak to others about their confused opinions as if it is fact. This doesn't just happen with the Law of One, by any means! But in the end, it is my "gripe" and so it is my distortion, and my challenge is, of course, to see how all this confusion is divinely perfect.

That being said... it goes something like this. (Dramatized for effect):

Ra may have said, "In truth, there is no right and wrong" but that is sort of a theoretical statement that applies to their density, but not ours. Here in third density there actually IS right and wrong. These are called "STO" and "STS". Even if they aren't absolute right and wrong, they are certainly relative right and wrong, depending on how we wish to polarize.

Similarly, though the Law of One might say there is no distinction between "self" and "other", this again is merely theoretical. Here in third density, there is a real difference between "self" and "other", and this difference is VERY IMPORTANT for us to understand here, or else we will never graduate.

This is because "The Choice" is given to us to decide BETWEEN "STO" and "STS". We make "The Choice" every time we decide to serve others, rather than serving ourselves. This is how we polarize and graduate from third density.

We cannot both serve others and serve the self simultaneously. That is impossible. Since there is a real distinction between "self" and "other", we must choose between them here in third density. What is more, don't be fooled by those who claim there really is no difference. They are in the "sinkhole of indifference" and if you believe them, you will not polarize and you will not graduate.

STO, or service-to-others, is kind of like being a goody-two-shoes. It is doing nice things for people, trying to placate them, and acquiescing to their incessant demands. In order to accomplish this, we must put others before ourselves, and subjugate our own heart's desire in order to be "of service" to others. Thus being "STO" boils down to being a servant to other people's egos, and projecting "love and light" at all times, even if this is not our experience in the moment.

STS, or service-to-self, means being selfish by attending to one's own needs and desires. If we put ourselves first in life, surely we are negatively polarizing. And moreover, this is wrong. If we keep doing this, we will eventually become "evil" beings. Like the "Illuminati" or the "Cabal". We must be ever vigilant about these "others" which we have termed the "Illuminati" and the "Cabal" because their primary goal in life is to trick us into becoming STS like them.

In fact, the primary way that they trick us is by getting us to believe that the Law of One applies here in third density. By causing us to believe that "in truth, there is no right and wrong" and that "there is no real distinction between self and other" we will fall into the trap of accepting these others as ourselves. And if we accept them, that means we approve of what they are doing, and are complicit in their actions.

Thus, in order to get to the space where the Law of One really applies, we must reject the Law of One. Thus, denial is growth and ignorance is bliss.

Once we are finally able to overthrow these "others" like the "Illuminati" and the "Cabal", then third density will "grow" into fourth density, and from there to fifth and sixth. Fourth density is kind of like Narnia, a fantastical land where animals talk to you and people can fly. The earth will become a place of eternal bliss, where everybody will always be happy and content in all things.

We are almost there. For, on December 21, 2012, the world will become magically transformed into fourth density. But we must not let our guard down! The evil others are still here trying to trick us into complacency. Their diabolical plans to control the world under a single currency, ignite World War III, and send us good patriotic Americans off to die in their FEMA camps has a good chance of succeeding, unless we become more vigilant then ever! Therefore, we must spend our last days here in third density "awakening others" to their evil plots.

We must not, under any circumstances, allow ourselves to feel peace, love, or joy in these times. These will cause us to fall back into the "sinkhole of indifference" and will allow the Evil Ones to take over the world, and force us all into an evil, nasty place called "negative fourth density" where we will be their eternal slaves against our will.

We must also avoid, under any circumstances, attending to our own distortions and psychological hangups at this time. That would be selfish to the extreme. More so now than ever, we must set our own spiritual growth on the back burner, and place all of our attention and efforts into "awakening others" and saving them from the evil "negative fourth density" timeline, to which they are careening at breakneck speed. We must save them from themselves, and from these evil others that seek to control them against their own will.

Hurry! Time is running out!

[βαθμιαίος]

LOL! Thank you!

[Patrick]

...I suppose my "gripe" is when those who are confused speak to others about their confused opinions as if it is fact...

I must admit that I am often guilty of doing this. The set of truths I built for this Self seems pretty clear to me at this point. So I give my opinions, my points of view, as if it was simple information. Of course, it's only opinions and I guess I could adapt the way I share these so that it is clearer that it's only ever opinions that I am sharing.

Thank you my friend for sharing your thoughts on the matter.

[Spaced]

I think this Nietzsche quote applies here. "Objection, evasion, joyous distrust, and love of irony are signs of health. Everything absolute belongs to pathology."

[βαθμιαίος]

Everything absolute belongs to pathology.

Is that an absolute statement?

[Spaced]

Everything absolute belongs to pathology.

Is that an absolute statement?

a sign of love of irony perhaps?

[Meerie]

Ra may have said, "In truth, there is no right and wrong" but that is sort of a theoretical statement that applies to their density, but not ours. Here in third density there actually IS right and wrong. These are called "STO" and "STS". Even if they aren't absolute right and wrong, they are certainly relative right and wrong, depending on how we wish to polarize.

Similarly, though the Law of One might say there is no distinction between "self" and "other", this again is merely theoretical. Here in third density, there is a real difference between "self" and "other", and this difference is VERY IMPORTANT for us to understand here, or else we will never graduate.

This is because "The Choice" is given to us to decide BETWEEN "STO" and "STS". We make "The Choice" every time we decide to serve others, rather than serving ourselves. This is how we polarize and graduate from third density.

We cannot both serve others and serve the self simultaneously. That is impossible. Since there is a real distinction between "self" and "other", we must choose between them here in third density. What is more, don't be fooled by those who claim there really is no difference. They are in the "sinkhole of indifference" and if you believe them, you will not polarize and you will not graduate.

STO, or service-to-others, is kind of like being a goody-two-shoes. It is doing nice things for people, trying to placate them, and acquiescing to their incessant demands. In order to accomplish this, we must put others before ourselves, and subjugate our own heart's desire in order to be "of service" to others. Thus being "STO" boils down to being a servant to other people's egos, and projecting "love and light" at all times, even if this is not our experience in the moment.

STS, or service-to-self, means being selfish by attending to one's own needs and desires. If we put ourselves first in life, surely we are negatively polarizing. And moreover, this is wrong. If we keep doing this, we will eventually become "evil" beings. Like the "Illuminati" or the "Cabal". We must be ever vigilant about these "others" which we have termed the "Illuminati" and the "Cabal" because their primary goal in life is to trick us into becoming STS like them.

In fact, the primary way that they trick us is by getting us to believe that the Law of One applies here in third density. By causing us to believe that "in truth, there is no right and wrong" and that "there is no real distinction between self and other" we will fall into the trap of accepting these others as ourselves. And if we accept them, that means we approve of what they are doing, and are complicit in their actions.


Hurry! Time is running out!

Tenet, I think the confusion stems from that we are dealing with two different paradigms here, 3D and then the upper levels, that Ra speaks about from their point of view, where "in truth, there is no right or wrong".
I do however believe
1) that they do interlap here already and that we all had glimpses of that already

2) that it is possible to reach a state even in this 3D density where there in deed is no difference anymore.
Where the self and other selves are not viewed as separate anymore.
I think that is what buddhists and teachers like Alan Watts talk about, that happens when we reach what is commonly termed enlightenment.
And then the choice between STO and STS is obsolete because once you view there is no separation, how could you then possibly be harming anyone?
since all is one anyways...
imo

[Patrick]

I believe it is indeed possible to reach such a state right here while incarnated in veiled 3d.

[reeay]

I think this Nietzsche quote applies here. "Objection, evasion, joyous distrust, and love of irony are signs of health. Everything absolute belongs to pathology."

Nietzsche also said that every theory is part of the theorist's autobiography... so maybe he was talking about himself lol