Comparing Ra and the Cassiopaeans

[Asolsutsesvyl]

This combined with the nature of the Ra material attract a type of person who is very open and accepting as well as oriented toward a lack of blind acceptance. Most of us have a broad base of knowledge and Ra is an important piece that at least for me, is the cornerstone. While Ra does have it's adherents and blind followers they have not been a sole voice for the material IME.

Cassiopaean Transcripts if my memory serves are also only a single source channeled by LKJ and they have not demonstrated the ability to move to other channels. The material itself requires a more faith based approach and is not as inherently accepting as is LLR material. There is also more fear present in the Q&A of that material in my own opinion. All of these increase the likelihood of message drift and negative interference. Assuming the message started as positive to begin with.

In the modern Cassiopaean channeling (after that of the older years which e.g. Montalk finds of much better quality), they've experimented to varying extents here and there with who plays how large a role at the board which is used. It's a bit more flexible than LKJ always having her hand in the process of letters and other symbols being selected.

But as for other groups channeling who are not part of the gathering in her home -- it's very, very strongly frowned upon. Experiments in channeling by others in that online community are viewed as irresponsible and even outright dangerous. Because, or so it goes, it's extremely difficult to produce anything other than pure crap, and only a very rare few individuals have the required nature. Furthermore, it makes the people involved vulnerable to creepy higher-density STS dynamics.

Supposedly, the Cassiopaea community is really, really good at combining "open-mindedness" and "critical-mindedness", but in practice, while LKJ and the group consensus approach takes a hard stance in terms of asserting, "there is no belief system" (and so no dogmatism to go along with one), I think it's obvious that there is.

It's great how they in earlier years put information together that may help people be safe and avoid pitfalls in spiritual journeys, but then it's transformed into a one-size-fits-all straitjacket instead of being developed into whatever tools different kinds of individuals may find useful.

Well, as for the Ra material, one thing should be noted:

Ta exclusively answered questions.
So they did not speak on something that wasn't asked.
So obviously the questioner would be a main source of distortion.

Not necessarily in the sense of evoking inaccurate answers, more in the sense of simply,asking questions that are not very helpful.

Or simply leaving gaps in the types of questions asked, or prioritizing unwisely among questions.

Don Elkins had his rough vision for what kinds of questions to explore for a structured presentation for a series of books. Maybe he over-planned, in part? Or maybe he planned too soon, and more questions first for the group to orient themselves better, maybe even asking Ra more about types of questions -- since Ra obviously had some preferences ("Re-listening Report", again) -- would have made for a different and better planning afterwards.

LKJ's old comments come to mind, regarding how Don and the others obviously made judgments about the spiritual value of questions in advance. LKJ's theory on why Don was left so vulnerable was that they were too prejudiced to ask the questions that could have given the information needed for effective protection (instead of ineffective things fixated upon). But unlike my comment in the previous post, LKJ had the main idea that more questions about higher-density STS beings and dynamics were what was missing -- the type of information explored in the Cassiopaean material in the early years.

If it's for the purpose of spiritual evolution, obviously the main focus would have to be on practical ways to grow, heal and evolve.
At least from my perspective, as accurate as much information on the material may be, it doesn't offer much in a practical way in terms of how do I heal, grow or evolve.
There is definetely a ton of material out there which has a lot more of stuff to offer in a way that can be applied to your spiritual development.

There is a striking similarity with the older Fourth Way teaching, especially the structured presentations by Ouspensky and Mouravieff. Looking at the cosmologies and the schematic structures used, the teachings appear to be related -- the human origins are separate, but I don't know of as large a correspondence between the Law of One and any other older teaching.

In the cosmology part, the Ra material is better developed, though the Fourth Way provides what I think is some missing parts of structure for the same overall "system".

But in the psychology part, the Fourth Way "psychology" really shines -- it provides a different system (functional centers clearly related to experience of consciousness vs. chakras), more elaborate, and I think more practical.

LKJ found Mouravieff's Gnosis useful for bridging the gap between the Cassiopaean teaching and various historical teachings, but I think it would be an even better match with the Ra material.

I basically think a careful comparison of Law of One and the Fourth Way systematizations could give a synthesis that honors the structure (in part common, in part differing) while correcting the weakest points of both. But it's far easier said than done.

What I find much more "unhelpful" than the lack of practical advice is the way in which the material is presented, which is in my opinion it's biggest distortion.

When I read,through, I am very much reminded of Autism.
While that might be a consequence of the difficulty of bridging several densities, the effect it has is pretty much counter-productive.
It kind of pulls you out of physical reality into a preatty much information based,and thus abstract realm, that otis not so much connected with physical reality, similar to the core problem of Autism, that's why it reminds me of that.

I would say that spiritual evolution is about embodying divine consciousness in physical reality, and in that regard it seems, although the information in the material might be quite "pure", it actually has a very negative effect on your spiritual development.

Thats where I see a huge negative distortion in the material.

Basically, your complaint sounds like it's about the need to focus more intensely in order to get something out of the text, instead of being able to read it in a more habitual way, like the newspaper. Gurdjieff had the idea that that's a good thing -- that's why he made Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson way, way "worse" a text than the Law of One -- because habitual associations are a wall shutting out new realizations.

Gurdjieff may have gone overboard, and I can't claim to find his magnum opus a great read. (But the introduction he wrote -- supposedly meant to offend some types of readers -- is one of the most hilarious texts I have ever read.) Ra did something milder in avoiding some conventional idioms and other wordings because, or so it seems from some motivations in exchanges, conventional associations produce too distorted a meaning.

Anyway, I don't really get your point. Spirituality involves moving away from the physical world and then back, through contemplation, meditation, etc., along with other things which may push the boundary in the opposite (more conscioiusly embodied) direction. Doesn't it make sense for contemplative spiritual material to involve a move away from the physical and into the abstract for a while?