Ra material is not the Law of One

[JustLikeYou]

Too many here seem to have chips on their shoulders for some reason and want to find something to argue about in everything.

We have similar lessons, which is part of the reason we were drawn to this forum.

Another reason for this tendency is that for most of us, the Ra Material is the simplest, most coherent expression of the Law of One which we have access to. However, there is much that was left unsaid, many questions left unasked, many answers which bear alternate interpretations.

Yet another perspective: consider a game of chess. The pieces are moved and the game is played out. Some players play aggressively, some players play defensively, some players like to make use of the element of surprise. No matter how the game is played, the pieces will be moved and the minds of the two players will be revealed therein. Yet the actual movement of the pieces does not say anything about whether the two players are friends or enemies. It says nothing about whether they are attached to winning or simply enjoy the game as an adventure to be undertaken with a friend who is only pretending to be a foe. It is true that some here have the appearance of mental rigidity, but this may only be a way of playing the game. When there is a perceived overabundance of Yang, responding with Yin will harmonize the situation. If another is aggressive, allow him inside and let him make his own mistake. In the course of the game, he will see the folly and all will be well.

Chip or no chip, the members here mean well. Those who lack softness and humility will learn this in time.

---

I would argue that to include rather than exclude will always make you fuller. We should worry more about the meaning behind the words rather than correcting the language that ultimately leads in the same direction.

I do not mean to contradict your assertion, hogey. Rather, I mean to offer the flip-side of the coin in order than a balanced perspective on this subject may be viewed.

Inclusion and exclusion is a balance which must be negotiated. Let me give you an example. Let's say you want to have a party. Who do you invite? If you invite your whole city, you are effectively throwing a festival. If you only invite your closest friends, you are having a small get-together. The vibration of these two kinds of events is completely different. If your closest friends are all yogis, a get-together will likely include some asana, meditation and mantra. When I was in college, my closest friends and I liked to play Super Smash Bros (it was convenient that there were 4 of us). But when your party includes the entire city, no longer can you have this intimate interaction in a focused way. Activities must be very general, communication must be much more shallow.

Therefore, in choosing the inclusion/exclusion balance, it is important to consider the focus and depth of your engagement. Here, in "Strictly Law of One", the intention is great focus and depth. Therefore, there will be many who are naturally excluded. They are not excluded because we do not want them here. They are excluded because they choose not to explore with the same level of focus and depth.

I think the main reason that we attempt to maintain fidelity to Ra's chosen terminology is the same as the reason that the neophyte studies his tradition of choice exclusively. Only when the chosen tradition is mastered is it appropriate to synthesize other traditions. If we deviate too soon from Ra's terminology, we run the risk of losing the intended meaning. Until we are certain of the intended meanings and the interconnections between these meanings, it is wise to stick to the teaching as it is taught.

I'll let Ra speak to this point:

76.9

It is well to investigate each discipline, not as a dilettante, but as one who seeks the touchstone, one who wishes to feel the pull of the magnet. One of these studies will be more attractive to the seeker. Let the seeker, then, investigate the archetypical mind using, basically, one of these three disciplines. After a period of study, the discipline mastered sufficiently, the seeker may then complete the more important step: that is, the moving beyond the written in order to express in an unique fashion its understanding, if you may again pardon the noun, of the archetypical mind.

(emphasis mine.)