05-08-2018, 09:12 AM
Gurdjieff was a very colorful person, and not at all what we would consider politically correct. All the same he was a very very positive person in that STO sense.
This entire thread has really grabbed my attention, i spent an entire sitting exercise contemplating this, sorry for derailing the thread. I don't think Gurdieff is a source of the "spiritual" and neither is LOO. The are both describing the existence adn relationships of the same things, and yes the smallish group of L&L and the modern setting makes it very understandable to use today. Both Gurdjieff and Ra do trigger spiritual type thinking I do think the word "spiritual" is troublesome to say the least.
I am having trouble with the word purity as well. what is pure? is more in depth purer (astrology is far more in depth in describing the structures of creation than Ra)? is traditional astrology more pure than modern (are the 22 signatures of modern astrology more or less pure than the 19 from classical astrology)? Should I be studying hebrew Kabbalah (the true oral tradition as I was taught) or the new magical flavor (ala the golden dawn who wove it together with astrology into the magical structure of their studies)? Is pure just a lacking of definition? of distortion? I don't think Ra would ever consider it'self a spiritual source just a messenger of some rules sets and laws of our nature as would any fairly positive Channel, imo, Seth would fall out laughing at the idea of being a spiritual source,and then make fun of all the people that would confuse him for being one.
Over all i am tempted to say that in comparison to the works of the groups you mention in your inital statement
The reason the Ra material is the purest source of spiritual information (is it ok I added information here?), is that is has not been forced through the hands of countless selfish people that would distort for their own use. The literal sanctity of these readings to all of us, the labors of the scribes, and a few other factors based on all of us that care has so far preserved these very young documents in their initial state. They may not be so pure and un-corrupted in 1000 years, and yet they may be all that is left.
I think the initial message, is always the same, "the Law of One which flavor would you like?" man just chews it up and twits it to his own devices over time and we are left with a huge puzzle.
This entire thread has really grabbed my attention, i spent an entire sitting exercise contemplating this, sorry for derailing the thread. I don't think Gurdieff is a source of the "spiritual" and neither is LOO. The are both describing the existence adn relationships of the same things, and yes the smallish group of L&L and the modern setting makes it very understandable to use today. Both Gurdjieff and Ra do trigger spiritual type thinking I do think the word "spiritual" is troublesome to say the least.
I am having trouble with the word purity as well. what is pure? is more in depth purer (astrology is far more in depth in describing the structures of creation than Ra)? is traditional astrology more pure than modern (are the 22 signatures of modern astrology more or less pure than the 19 from classical astrology)? Should I be studying hebrew Kabbalah (the true oral tradition as I was taught) or the new magical flavor (ala the golden dawn who wove it together with astrology into the magical structure of their studies)? Is pure just a lacking of definition? of distortion? I don't think Ra would ever consider it'self a spiritual source just a messenger of some rules sets and laws of our nature as would any fairly positive Channel, imo, Seth would fall out laughing at the idea of being a spiritual source,and then make fun of all the people that would confuse him for being one.
Over all i am tempted to say that in comparison to the works of the groups you mention in your inital statement
The reason the Ra material is the purest source of spiritual information (is it ok I added information here?), is that is has not been forced through the hands of countless selfish people that would distort for their own use. The literal sanctity of these readings to all of us, the labors of the scribes, and a few other factors based on all of us that care has so far preserved these very young documents in their initial state. They may not be so pure and un-corrupted in 1000 years, and yet they may be all that is left.
I think the initial message, is always the same, "the Law of One which flavor would you like?" man just chews it up and twits it to his own devices over time and we are left with a huge puzzle.