David Wilcock

[Monica]

The larger point was that his point initially was that he channeled Ra, i.e the same Ra. This was more than "presumably understood" as much as stated as the same Ra as the Ra of the LOO. Invoking the name of Ra while speaking about Ra while claiming authority on Ra while all at once channeling in the same name as Ra, is cumbersome, complicated and confusing at best if not at least, on any level. Thats all. I questioned it then as much as I do now. Given the high and stringent requirements of the combined group of the L/L remaining as pure and "faithful to the message", comprised of Carla, Jim, Don and the L/L in general, and as being such a narrow band communication, and that this was referenced repeatedly over and over again by Ra, it was as academically suspicious then as it is now that this would have been possible by one single man vs a the group that was as "singularly dedicated and faithful to the message". With all this in mind, it's unlikely that any single person might be able to effectively channel Ra unless he were as likely to effectuate this very same stringent and narrow band communication requirement as was the case in and with the matrix that the L/L group seemed to emit. Either we accept the stringent requirement as fact or we do not. If we do not accept the requirements made so often by Ra, as to even the simple placement of a candlestick or a book as much as the integrity of the group, then we may accept his claims and reject Ra's, verses the seeming logic of winning the day to question his and accept Ra's.

I think this is a very important point. If the name of his channeled source was anything other than Ra, we would not be dealing with all this confusion. He would be offering another channeled source, along with all his other sources of info, his intellectual expertise, his intuitive dreamwork, etc. and some of us might view it collectively just as we view any other person's contribution - a rich assortment of interesting info, some of which is clearly based on the Law of One, and some of which may resonate and some may not. But we wouldn't have people wondering "Is this the same Ra?" or possibly getting confused when Ra is mentioned...and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Which leads to the question: Is it common for anyone's Higher Self, when channeled, to use the name of its corresponding SMC? Does anyone know of any other cases in which this has happened? We all know of many other channeled sources, which have names...are these names of their SMC's?

---

I respectfully offer that the LOO was not offered as a treatise to be made into a scholarly material reserved for academics as much as it is a candle in the dark offered for all, whatever station in life they may hold.

I emphatically agree with this!

Religions have authorities because they have doctrine...their recognized authorities claim to be scholars of their respective doctrinal texts. I don't think Ra ever intended for the Law of One to be any sort of doctrinal text. This is clear by the amount of effort and care taken by Ra to not infringe upon anyone's free will, but to only answer direct questions, and even then sometimes refrain from a complete answer, due to concern about violating the Law of Confusion.

That said, we can only speculate as to the intention behind the words of an other-self.

You are strongly encouraged by this writer not to pick sides. That would infer a separation principle of STS as opposed to a unification principle of STO. We are attempting to speak academically to assertions only, not about individuals or sides.

Indeed.