What is Ra teaching?

[Nabil Naser]

I have been studying the Ra teachings for about a quarter of a century.
That is a long time.

I would like to know what this community thinks that Ra was trying to teach.

The most important message that Ra has shared was The Law of One.

They described it in one answer when they suggested that a person should see the creator when they look in a mirror, or when they look at another person.

What do you think Ra was trying to share with us?

If all are one, can we justify our vilification of others?

[Peregrinus]

All judgment of other-self is is judgment of the self. The part that may be difficult to understand whilst in this veiled illusion is that all aspects of existence is within each of us, both the saint and the villain and every Earthly aspect in between, and only in that understanding can the self truly embrace, love, and forgive all parts of the self.

What was Ra trying to impart? A lesser distorted view of The Law of One than is currently found in many religions. The veil... I have come to understand that this is not something which is forced upon each of us in the illusion. It is something we choose and more importantly, manifest each our self. All is possible. All is perfect.

[AnthroHeart]

That's fascinating Pere about us choosing to have the veil, and placing it upon ourselves. I agree with what Ra says about the veil as to help us achieve a greater polarity. In my seeking, I'm glad to have had it. Really has made me search a lot harder than I otherwise would have.

[rva_jeremy]

The most important thing I think Ra tried to impart is an appreciation for the mystery of the creation and Creator. At the risk of being excessively reductive, from this it seems like everything else flows, because without this appreciation working in the dark with a tiny candle can seem useless.

I don't think it's too large or erroneous a statement to say that Ra left more unsaid than said. What they intended from my viewpoint was to guide, to point the direction out to the traveler rather than to carry him. Through this guidance and careful respect for free will, they simply intended to increase the efficiency of a working already in play by those three.

One of the things I'm working through with the Law of One is to use the material as a jumping off point for further exploration that was not specifically documented in the dialogues. The material is so interesting that one could view it as more complete "map" than it actually is, and therefore bound one's search within its terms rather than use those terms as leaping-off points for further truths that were not communicated or possibly couldn't be communicated verbally.

I explored this in a blog post a few months ago called "A Science of Self".

[Steppingfeet]

Nabil, in response to your question, "If all are one, can we justify our vilification of others?", I would contend that we may "justify" any and all actions using our home-cooked rational.

Whether others agree with our justification is a different matter entirely.

The question I believe you intend to ask is, "To what extent does vilification distort the Law of One?" Or perhaps, "Is the act of vilification representative of the Law of One?"

To which I have this quote from the Law of One to offer for your consideration:

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?ses...stion_id=4

Specifically, "We spoke to one who heard and understood and was in a position to decree the Law of One. However, the priests and peoples of that era quickly distorted our message, robbing it of the, shall we say, compassion with which unity is informed by its very nature. Since it contains all, it cannot abhor any."

This inability to "abhor" anything within creation is not an emotional acceptance, per se, though it may manifest as such, but is on a level provocatively expressed in the analogy of the mirror accepting (or not abhoring) that which passes before it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Jeremy, quick comment on your post. You said about the Law of One material that "[it] is so interesting that one could view it as more complete "map" than it actually is..."

I can see the evolution of your thought in this regard.

The Asc2k guidelines that you authored (which we used as a base to create the Bring4th guidelines) contained a statement along the lines of the Law of One being a "complete" system of study. When revising and augmenting those guidelines for the purpose of this forum, I initially amended that statement to eliminate the notion of the Law of One material being "complete", as no written or verbally communicated source of information can be "complete" in the conventional sense of the term.

The term would work if intended in the holographic sense in which the part contains the infinite whole. Otherwise, no matter the order of magnitude at which the material rocks, it can forever only serve as the finger pointing at the moon. (Though the Law of One material is in my opinion one of the few sources of information that actually points at the moon.)

With love and light,
GLB

[Nabil Naser]

Thank GLB, I have read the reference that you have shared many times. In Fact, I can't tell you exactly how many times.

You have assumed that my question is simple. It is not.

Vilification of others decides who we choose to be our friends and brothers, and who we choose to ignore.
I know that all humanity is one, and that we are all one with the creator.

It is important to understand and appreciate the Ra teachings for what they are. They are not a guide for any one person, but they are a guide nonetheless.

Ra emphasized the importance of our thoughts.
"For every thought, there is an opposite thought", they said.

We need to keep that in mind.

I have seen much emphasis on one way of thinking in this forum, for example. It suggests that there are dark energies at work, that we all should be worried about.

This negates our own energies, and our own ability to create within the light.

Ra gave us very good tools to use. I am not sure that people understand what these tools are.

Nabil, in response to your question, "If all are one, can we justify our vilification of others?", I would contend that we may "justify" any and all actions using our home-cooked rational.

Whether others agree with our justification is a different matter entirely.

The question I believe you intend to ask is, "To what extent does vilification distort the Law of One?" Or perhaps, "Is the act of vilification representative of the Law of One?"

To which I have this quote from the Law of One to offer for your consideration:

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?ses...stion_id=4

Specifically, "We spoke to one who heard and understood and was in a position to decree the Law of One. However, the priests and peoples of that era quickly distorted our message, robbing it of the, shall we say, compassion with which unity is informed by its very nature. Since it contains all, it cannot abhor any."

This inability to "abhor" anything within creation is not an emotional acceptance, per se, though it may manifest as such, but is on a level provocatively expressed in the analogy of the mirror accepting (or not abhoring) that which passes before it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Jeremy, quick comment on your post. You said about the Law of One material that "[it] is so interesting that one could view it as more complete "map" than it actually is..."

I can see the evolution of your thought in this regard.

The Asc2k guidelines that you authored (which we used as a base to create the Bring4th guidelines) contained a statement along the lines of the Law of One being a "complete" system of study. When revising and augmenting those guidelines for the purpose of this forum, I initially amended that statement to eliminate the notion of the Law of One material being "complete", as no written or verbally communicated source of information can be "complete" in the conventional sense of the term.

The term would work if intended in the holographic sense in which the part contains the infinite whole. Otherwise, no matter the order of magnitude at which the material rocks, it can forever only serve as the finger pointing at the moon. (Though the Law of One material is in my opinion one of the few sources of information that actually points at the moon.)

With love and light,
GLB

[Confused]

Ra gave us very good tools to use.

In this regards, may be the following LOO exchange could prove useful -

34.6 Questioner: Thank you. Can you give me examples of catalytic action from the last session beginning with the self unmanifested producing learning catalyst?

Ra: I am Ra. We observed your interest in the catalyst of pain. This experience is most common among your entities. The pain may be of the physical complex. More often it is of the mental and emotional complex. In some few cases the pain is spiritual in complex-nature. This creates a potential for learning. The lessons to be learned vary. Almost always these lessons include patience, tolerance, and the ability for the light touch.

Very often the catalyst for emotional pain, whether it be the death of the physical complex of one other-self which is loved or other seeming loss, will simply result in the opposite, in a bitterness and impatience, a souring. This is catalyst which has gone awry. In these cases then there will be additional catalyst provided to offer the unmanifested self further opportunities for discovering the self as all-sufficient Creator containing all that there is and full of joy.

[Phoenix]

Sometimes I imagine Ra was trying to say (don't need to reference do I?):

The Law of One, this is the Law of One. You are not somewhat like others, you are others. No concern of bird or beast. This is the Law of One.

What mistakes, all is one?

This is a central teaching of the Law of One!

This concept cannot be understood unless it is seen as only a nudge to the mind/ body/ spirit complex. The truth is the Law of One.

This is too transcient, in relation to the Law of One.

Ra is not elite. Ra is an humble messenger of the Law of One.

Why aren't we talking about the Law of One?

[Steppingfeet]

Dear Nabil,

Thank you for your reply.

Ra emphasized the importance of our thoughts.
"For every thought, there is an opposite thought", they said.

Nabil, if this statement is anything, it is a paraphrasing of what Ra said. This quote is nowhere in the Law of One material.

I understand that you wish to make a point drawn from your study of the Law of One, and I do not wish to interfere with your making of that point, but I would kindly request to and all others participating in this forum (myself included), to make clear when you are using Ra's exact words and when you are paraphrasing and/or offering your own interpretation.

I'm not suggesting that a paraphrase or interpretation is somehow less worthy that what Ra said, only that it will be conducive for collective discussion and study to be clear about the difference between quoting directly and offering ones interpretation.

It is misleading and confusing to do otherwise.

If you are not already aware, you can find and excerpt the precise Law of One quote you are looking for at http://lawofone.info/.

Thank you and everyone else for working within this guideline. : )

Love/Light,
Gary

PS: You wrote:

I have seen much emphasis on one way of thinking in this forum, for example. It suggests that there are dark energies at work, that we all should be worried about.

This negates our own energies, and our own ability to create within the light.

There is an ongoing thread regarding forum relationships which you may enjoy perusing and participating in at http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...033&page=1.

[kycahi]

I got the impression that the Ra communications began for getting answers to Don. He had built up and interpreted a lot of data regarding the phenomena and had curiosity over a few things that he couldn't sort out.

He so liked all the new information that he got permission to share it in the Ra Material, a.k.a. Law of One.

The Law of One is a super-simple way to say that, not only are WE all one, but that EVERYTHING is one. Ra could explain anything beyond that only by talking about "distortions" of the Law, many being present only in our 3rd density illusional existence.

Our senses "tell" us that we are not one, but separate from each other and from lots of things here and out there. So Ra described how what see, feel and measure are distortions of the Law of One(ness), and those distortions have a method to them, e.g. "the First Distortion, Second," etc. Another example of the method are the seven levels of consciousness.

The dialogue format and "alien" language of the material provide plenty of built-in excuse for not taking it seriously, which complies with the first distortion--giving the reader a personal choice of accepting the information or rejecting it.