Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

[Unbound]

Perhaps you missed it, but I am still curious as to your thoughts regarding my question on archetypes on the previous page.

---

Er, two pages ago now.

[βαθμιαίος]

It reminds me of the old riddle
If a tree falls and no one hears it, did it make a noise?

Ra suggesting that space and time only exist with an immediate observer reminds of that.

I'm trying to remember any time Ra suggested that. Can you provide a quote?

[Spaced]

OK I haven't really read this whole thread but I'm gonna toss in my two cents nonetheless: The Ra material may be mostly entertainment but I personally get a lot out of entertainment, especially when it has a good message.

I spent years as a kid watching Star Trek and I can honestly say that the Federation philosophy has had an impact on my own personal philosophy. Do I believe Star Trek is real? No not really, I mean I suppose if the Universe is truly infinite then somewhere in the stretch of time and space there could be a similar group operating from a similar philosophy as the Federation, but to me that's besides the point. Star Trek is just a vehicle for certain ideas.

Similarly the Ra material is a vehicle for certain ideas. Are Ra really a group of extraterrestrials from Venus who are beaming information thru Carla? That I don't know about. I certainly enjoy the message though, not that it's anything I hadn't considered before, but the way it condenses all these concepts I've had floating around in my head most of my life into a coherent (or at least semi-coherent) concept of reality has been interesting to me. As others have mentioned I've found the archetypal mind stuff from book IV to be useful as a tool for self-study, but I've always been interested in the idea of the archetypes having grown up with a keen interest in mythology and have enjoyed the works of people like Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, so once again it's nothing new just a rearrangement of old ideas.

So I guess whether it comes from Carla's subconscious or from an entity named Ra doesn't make much difference to me. A lot of it just seems like window dressing there to pique people's interest and certainly many people get caught up in all that stuff, sometimes to the point where it has a detrimental effect on their relationships and loosens their grip on reality. Going back to my Star Trek analogy though, the same could be said of Trekkies

[Monica]

It's interesting that you called it the "Carla material"

I've never seen anyone refer to it thusly. We usually say The Ra Material.

first, I take it you think the work is a product of an unconscious mind rather than hyper evolved aliens?

It doesn't matter. What matters is whether the information has the ring of truth and can withstand scrutiny.

When I first read the books, I was astounded at the depth. It seemed obvious to me that it came from a Higher Source.

Now, 30 years later and having reread it several times, I still feel that the Material stands on its own merit.

As for crop circles and aliens, well it's really not that hard to create a crop circle, it's quite a trivial matter really I see no need to assume entities capable of interstellar spacecraft would do such a thing when it's so easily accomplished with human tools and effort.

The ones made by humans are crude in comparison to the 'real' ones. Genuine crop circles have anomalies not found in the ones made by humans. Genuine crop circles often appear within 20 minutes, without any tracks in the muds. Human-made circles take many hours, and a large team with equipment, to complete. Not possible in 20 minutes.

I am open to the possibility of extra terrestrial life forms but have seen no credible evidence thus far

What do you think all those UFOs are then?

[isis]

It's interesting that you called it the "Carla material"

I've never seen anyone refer to it thusly. We usually say The Ra Material.

ididn'tdoit

[Account1]

I'm trying to remember any time Ra suggested that. Can you provide a quote?

I was responding to a question posed by Adonai one, he said that's what Ra implicitly stated so I addressed in that form, I was going to ask for a reference in the material but like I said earlier, I've been hungover all day.

What do you think all those UFOs are then?

All of those factual reports and solid evidence? I approach it with honesty, interest and skepticism.
Here's the basic gist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosocial_hypothesis

It doesn't matter. What matters is whether the information has the ring of truth and can withstand scrutiny.

Is the complete lack of empirical justification withstanding scrutiny? I don't mean feeling sensations and going "oh man chakras are real"

As others have mentioned I've found the archetypal mind stuff from book IV to be useful as a tool for self-study, but I've always been interested in the idea of the archetypes having grown up with a keen interest in mythology and have enjoyed the works of people like Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, so once again it's nothing new just a rearrangement of old ideas.

If you're interested in Jung check out the essay "Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies" you may find it relevant and of interest. As I stated before (but I understand you haven't read the whole thread, fair enough) is that there are clear indications of modern manifestation of archetypal thought in this book but assuming those representations to be portraying real events and phenomena is too much for me personally.

[Spaced]

Sounds like an interesting read, thanks!

[AnthroHeart]

I never figured the Law of One to be dangerous, but it has caused in me several mental breakdowns and many suicidal thoughts. I get the urge to go because I think a higher density is better.

[Unbound]

Anything is dangerous when it is taken to be superior to anything else.

[Adonai One]

I'm trying to remember any time Ra suggested that. Can you provide a quote?

I was responding to a question posed by Adonai one, he said that's what Ra implicitly stated so I addressed in that form, I was going to ask for a reference in the material but like I said earlier, I've been hungover all day.

I posted the reference and I'll post it again. The Logos is considered an individual mind.

28.6 Questioner: When does individualization or the individualized portion of consciousness come into play? How does this individualization occur and at what point does individualized consciousness take over in working on the basic light?

Ra: I am Ra. You remain carefully in the area of creation itself. In this process we must further confuse you by stating that the process by which free will acts upon potential intelligent infinity to become focused intelligent energy takes place without the space/time of which you are so aware as it is your continuum experience.

The experience or existence of space/time comes into being after the individuation process of Logos or Love has been completed and the physical universe, as you would call it, has coalesced or begun to draw inward while moving outward to the extent that that which you call your sun bodies have in their turn created timeless chaos coalescing into what you call planets, these vortices of intelligent energy spending a large amount of what you would call first density in a timeless state, the space/time realization being one of the learn/teachings of this density of beingness.

Thus we have difficulty answering your questions with regard to time and space and their relationship to the, what you would call, original creation which is not a part of space/time as you can understand it.

[AnthroHeart]

Interesting, I didn't know that Creation was without space/time.

[Adonai One]

Time, as according to Ra, is an illusion and you can see first hand (if you believe everything is simultaneous), that becoming unconscious of one moment and conscious of another is a direct veiling existing in every moment. According to Ra's ultimate reality, there are no moments. There is "just is", unity, oneness, singleness. Everything is purported to be inherently complete.

So, indeed, the first veil of space being divided by time must be forged by the purported solar mind. This is the first potentiator.

[AnthroHeart]

That means the Logos spent eons in a timeless state thinking up Creation, before it executed it and made it manifest. Is this so?

[Adonai One]

Ideating all that it has been previously been infinitely and what it could be infinitely, yes. What we have is a direct reflection of infinity and all that it has ever desired.

It doesn't properly create but rather allows the creation to inherently express itself through it to the best of its ability.

[AnthroHeart]

Can the Logos create change in my life through prayer? Or does the Logos not interfere?

[Adonai One]

You are the Logos, Gemini. It's your light as well. You simply must allow your life to be changed. If you haven't experienced the change you desire, you haven't allowed it to occur yet. Nothing is given to you, everything is inherently given in time. It's just a matter of believing your desire is realized at the right time.

For the sake of the OP: All according to Ra's metaphysics, of course.

[βαθμιαίος]

I posted the reference and I'll post it again. The Logos is considered an individual mind.

28.6 Questioner: When does individualization or the individualized portion of consciousness come into play? How does this individualization occur and at what point does individualized consciousness take over in working on the basic light?

Ra: I am Ra. You remain carefully in the area of creation itself. In this process we must further confuse you by stating that the process by which free will acts upon potential intelligent infinity to become focused intelligent energy takes place without the space/time of which you are so aware as it is your continuum experience.

The experience or existence of space/time comes into being after the individuation process of Logos or Love has been completed and the physical universe, as you would call it, has coalesced or begun to draw inward while moving outward to the extent that that which you call your sun bodies have in their turn created timeless chaos coalescing into what you call planets, these vortices of intelligent energy spending a large amount of what you would call first density in a timeless state, the space/time realization being one of the learn/teachings of this density of beingness.

Thus we have difficulty answering your questions with regard to time and space and their relationship to the, what you would call, original creation which is not a part of space/time as you can understand it.

I'm not sure where the discrepancy came from, but that's not quite the same as "suggesting that space and time only exist with an immediate observer." I like your term forged much better -- space and time only exist once forged.

[Adonai One]

The Logos is an individuated portion of the creator and it is heavily stated (I will reference) that our interpretation of space/time only exists in our space/time. Other galaxies will see our galaxy entirely differently, perhaps even without time.

In this, the immediate observer is the one forging the theme, physics of each creation in their interpretation.

[Jeremy]

Trying to use intellectual faculties to understand any faith based philosophy will always result in the same ending which is unwillingness to accept that which cannot be proven. Attempting to find verification upon an intellectual level is akin to describing color to a blind person. I'm honestly surprised this discussion has gone on for as long as it has. Virulent defense and incessant personal displays of beliefs will produce no acceptable outcome for the one that questions this material thus such entertainment of this supposed curiosity accomplishes nothing in the long run.

[Account1]

I'm honestly surprised this discussion has gone on for as long as it has. Virulent defense and incessant personal displays of beliefs will produce no acceptable outcome for the one that questions this material thus such entertainment of this supposed curiosity accomplishes nothing in the long run.

It's because a lot of you don't seem to understand that you can't just pick and choose what's true and have it be true simply because you chose it.

The western empirical tradition that resulted in modern science is establishing truths, actual accurate observations and explanations of reality, it's a gradual process of discovery. Whereas this book offers a completely different view of the world not based on any science (well apart from Larson who is not respected in the scientific community) with a whole bunch of unprovable stuff and you just take that all on faith? I mean you may as well believe that this post will align your energy centers, there's no reason to believe it but people are proving they don't need reasons other than making you feel good. JLY was looking really promising but after a few posts it all broke down into "I can believe what I want and that includes making stuff up and being inconsistent" no offense intended but he did literally make stuff up (ad hoc explanations allowed by a cosmic philosophy that does not discriminate fact from fiction, he had the honesty to admit it though and did say that the theory would be consistent with what's displayed in the Ra Material, though doesn't stop it being made up) and was inconsistent (regarding Larson in relation to the Ra Material).

I'm surprised too though, apart from the individuals that just flared up and went "ah you're here to attack us like a zealot cos you don't see any reason to believe that my cherished views are true" I've found most of you to be rather pleasant and agreeable.

---

And to be honest, the longer I spend here the more convinced I become that this Material is bunk. Not completely convinced yet but I'm getting there. Especially as all the most reasonable folk here aren't completely convinced either.

[Jade]

Ah, the grand paradox: Those spiritual folks sure are nutty and annoying but man they are so nice!

[Account1]

Ah, the grand paradox: Those spiritual folks sure are nutty and annoying but man they are so nice!

Not exceptionally nice, just enough to be tolerable. Don't flatter yourselves.

---

I do a lot of comedic work, requires a sharp tongue, plz don't go getting offended.

[Unbound]

I'm honestly surprised this discussion has gone on for as long as it has. Virulent defense and incessant personal displays of beliefs will produce no acceptable outcome for the one that questions this material thus such entertainment of this supposed curiosity accomplishes nothing in the long run.

It's because a lot of you don't seem to understand that you can't just pick and choose what's true and have it be true simply because you chose it.

The western empirical tradition that resulted in modern science is establishing truths, actual accurate observations and explanations of reality, it's a gradual process of discovery. Whereas this book offers a completely different view of the world not based on any science (well apart from Larson who is not respected in the scientific community) with a whole bunch of unprovable stuff and you just take that all on faith? I mean you may as well believe that this post will align your energy centers, there's no reason to believe it but people are proving they don't need reasons other than making you feel good. JLY was looking really promising but after a few posts it all broke down into "I can believe what I want and that includes making stuff up and being inconsistent" no offense intended but he did literally make stuff up (ad hoc explanations allowed by a cosmic philosophy that does not discriminate fact from fiction, he had the honesty to admit it though and did say that the theory would be consistent with what's displayed in the Ra Material, though doesn't stop it being made up) and was inconsistent (regarding Larson in relation to the Ra Material).

I'm surprised too though, apart from the individuals that just flared up and went "ah you're here to attack us like a zealot cos you don't see any reason to believe that my cherished views are true" I've found most of you to be rather pleasant and agreeable.

---

And to be honest, the longer I spend here the more convinced I become that this Material is bunk. Not completely convinced yet but I'm getting there. Especially as all the most reasonable folk here aren't completely convinced either.

I am still curious of your thoughts regarding the concept of the 7 archetypes of Ra and whether or not you would consider these archetypes in the same way you have referred to the archetypes of our collective humanity? As in, do you see archetypes as "functional" or are they more just "memory stuff"?

[Account1]

I am still curious of your thoughts regarding the concept of the 7 archetypes of Ra and whether or not you would consider these archetypes in the same way you have referred to the archetypes of our collective humanity? As in, do you see archetypes as "functional" or are they more just "memory stuff"?

Sorry I missed you before, there's a lot in this thread and it's basically me vs. everyone so there's a lot for me to take in.

Well, you see I have to remain intellectually honest for the sake of investigation and discovery, so I can't just claim things to be a certain way when I'm not sure. Though, I personally lean towards the group of thought that these archetypes are basically functions of mind rather than residual, redundant vestigial aspects of the mind.

---

I am still curious of your thoughts regarding the concept of the 7 archetypes of Ra and whether or not you would consider these archetypes in the same way you have referred to the archetypes of our collective humanity?

Nah they're not quite the same. Ra's are even more fundamental, getting at the very roots of the mind, I can see why they're intriguing for people seeking self discovery. Matrix and potentiality are (from what I can gather) intellectual interpretations of the most basic of observations. As in it looks like spatial awareness given a conceptual framework lol, these thoughts came from within a deep area of the mind.

[Unbound]

Going with the idea of these archetypes being functional, how would you translate the function of archetypes of the mind in to the corresponding elements of the body and its functions? In otherwords, would you consider the archetypal elements of mind to be reflected or analogous to elements of the body?

[Jade]

Ah, the grand paradox: Those spiritual folks sure are nutty and annoying but man they are so nice!

Not exceptionally nice, just enough to be tolerable. Don't flatter yourselves.

---

I do a lot of comedic work, requires a sharp tongue, plz don't go getting offended.

Your bite doesn't hurt me. I'm pretty confident that I know what "rather pleasant and agreeable" means. I mean, I hear it all the time.

[Adonai One]

Account1, the most extraordinary claim in the material is Ra claims that sleeping on the side of a large pyramid can allow you to extend your life. If this material is true, we have a billion dollar pyramid-based health industry in the making.

If this material is so true, why aren't we seeing pyramids marketed by big pharma per the hour?

[JustLikeYou]

JLY was looking really promising but after a few posts it all broke down into "I can believe what I want and that includes making stuff up and being inconsistent" no offense intended but he did literally make stuff up (ad hoc explanations allowed by a cosmic philosophy that does not discriminate fact from fiction, he had the honesty to admit it though and did say that the theory would be consistent with what's displayed in the Ra Material, though doesn't stop it being made up) and was inconsistent (regarding Larson in relation to the Ra Material).

We all make stuff up. Where do you think any good idea comes from? How do you think scientific theories happen? Somebody "makes stuff up" and then checks to see if it works.

Maybe I need to say this a different way. Maybe I'm being too indirect, too sloppy, too brief, or all three.

First: I take issue with your terms. "Fact," "fiction," and "truth" all need definition.

My definitions:

"Fact" -- There are two kinds of facts: personal and inter-subjective.
- Personal facts -- The raw phenomena you experience
- Inter-subjective facts -- The raw phenomena whose description people agree to within an acceptable (i.e. high) tolerance
-> There are, in fact, no "raw phenomena," so this term refers to phenomena removed of their cultural and personal biases as far as can be consciously done.
-> Facts therefore vary in their reliability, but inter-subjective sensory facts are the most reliable, due to their vividness, our tendency to pay attention to them, and the number of data points involved.
-> Subjective facts (like mystical experiences) have every bit as much weight to the subject as inter-subjective facts. What must be interrogated is not their reality but their interpretation.

"Truth" -- A thought or thought system which adheres to accepted standards that define truth. Those standards:
- Accuracy (facts and model must correspond)
- Coherence (internal consistency of thought or system and external consistency with greater system in which the thought or system is embedded)
- Simplicity (that which asserts fewer variables is preferred)
- Comprehensiveness (that system which explains more of the phenomena is preferred)
-> You'll recognize these as roughly similar to Kuhn's standards for a scientific theory. They work for anything that can be said to be "true".
-> This model of truth has no attachment to any absolute measure. Truth is that which emerges from human consciousness as a consequence of what it is (and it is subjective at its core). These standards for truth are merely the baseline biases (call them archetypes if you want) that we have in our thought patterns. This is what Wittgenstein was describing when he said that we shared a "form of life".
-> When we say that something is "true" we are saying "I prefer this because I am this." But it is quite possible to be wrong about an assertion that takes this form (which is what your hippies sometimes do).
-> You'll notice that falsifiability is not on this list. That's because it's a standard for a natural law, not for truth.

"Fiction" -- A model of reality which falls short of truth in some way. A good fiction only falls short in the accidental details and a select few of the systematic elements (as in the case of science fiction and fantasy). A bad fiction has no bearing on the human experience whatsoever.

"Belief" -- A thought system that I accept as true, but am prepared to accept as fiction if new evidence suggests this.

On whether I believe the Ra Material:

The Ra Material is either true or a very good fiction. It is not a fact, though. It merely describes facts.

The Ra Material is a framework. It is not a completed philosophy. This means that there are plenty of elements that must still be fleshed out, or "made up" as you call it.

Because the systematic elements that I have personally studied adhere to all standards of truth, I accept this framework as true.

Because I have not studied all of the peripheral details (such as Ra's endorsement of Larson), I cannot endorse the history as true, but I cannot either assert that it is fiction.

Because I have come to trust Ra as a source of true thoughts and because I have come to trust Jim and Carla as a source of honesty and integrity, I am prepared to go out on a limb and say that I will probably endorse most of Larson's ideas when I read them, though I doubt I will feel satisfied.

[Account1]

JLY I was using consensus definitions rather than making up my own, as you have taken the liberty of doing.

We all make stuff up. Where do you think any good idea comes from? How do you think scientific theories happen? Somebody "makes stuff up" and then checks to see if it works.

Yes but making stuff up with no physical or experiential counterpart is some animistic tribal stuff. Like I said before assuming that all different explanations and models of reality hold the same degree of accuracy and therefore it is simply a matter of choosing one like a pair of clothes is ridiculous. Relativism is the bane of intellectual development.

The Ra Material is a framework

A framework that makes extraordinary claims, to utilize this framework you have to use these claims when interpreting information and experience.

Because I have not studied all of the peripheral details (such as Ra's endorsement of Larson), I cannot endorse the history as true, but I cannot either assert that it is fiction.

Well it's fairly obvious that it is neither completely one or the other, I use the absolute terms for the sake of efficiency and helping you get the general idea of what I'm trying to convey.

---

To argue that your ad hoc cosmic explanations for Ra's concept of polarity is as justified for being made up as a scientific theory that yields results in relation to observable phenomena is just too much.

[JustLikeYou]

JLY I was using consensus definitions rather than making up my own, as you have taken the liberty of doing.

If I don't hold a consensus perspective, why would I use consensus defintions? I think that mainstream thought systems are poor models, resulting in unnecessary equivocation and vagueness, especially where non-physical description is concerned.

Further, the idea of an objective description of reality, while useful, has no direct bearing on human experience. So I have had to redefine all epistemological terms in order to excise claims to absolute objectivity. We little folk down here just don't get that luxury.

Like I said before assuming that all different explanations and models of reality hold the same degree of accuracy and therefore it is simply a matter of choosing one like a pair of clothes is ridiculous.

I've never said this.

A framework that makes extraordinary claims, to utilize this framework you have to use these claims when interpreting information and experience.

And I do. That's the whole freakin point. What good is a philosophy (or a framework) if you don't use it?

---

To argue that your ad hoc cosmic explanations for Ra's concept of polarity is as justified for being made up as a scientific theory that yields results in relation to observable phenomena is just too much.

All good theories have to begin somewhere.