Ra, on the archetypes: "We have no dogma to offer"

[Adonai One]

88.24 Questioner: Ra must have had a, shall we say, lesson plan or course of training for the twenty-two archetypes to be given either to those of third density of Ra or, later on, to those in Egypt. Would you describe this scenario for the training course?

Ra: I am Ra. This shall be the last full query of this working.

We find it more nearly appropriate to discuss our plans in acquainting initiates upon your own planet with this particular version of the archetypes of the archetypical mind. Our first stage was the presentation of the images, one after the other, in the following order: one, eight, fifteen; two, nine, sixteen; three, ten, seventeen; four, eleven, eighteen; five, twelve, nineteen; six, thirteen, twenty; seven, fourteen, twenty-one; twenty-two. In this way the fundamental relationships between mind, body, and spirit could begin to be discovered, for as one sees, for instance, the Matrix of the Mind in comparison to the Matrices of Body and Spirit one may draw certain tentative conclusions.

When, at length, the student had mastered these visualizations and had considered each of the seven classifications of archetype, looking at the relationships between mind, body, and spirit, we then suggested consideration of archetypes in pairs: one and two; three and four; five; six and seven. You may continue in this form for the body and spirit archetypes. You will note that the consideration of the Significator was left unpaired, for the Significator shall be paired with Archetype Twenty-Two.

At the end of this line of inquiry the student was beginning to grasp more and more deeply the qualities and resonances of each archetype. At this point, using various other aids to spiritual evolution, we encouraged the initiate to learn to become each archetype and, most importantly, to know as best as possible within your illusion when the adoption of the archetype’s persona would be spiritually or metaphysically helpful.


As you can see, much work was done creatively by each initiate. We have no dogma to offer. Each perceives that which is needful and helpful to the self.

May we ask if there are any brief queries before we leave this working?

---

Hence the existence of the purported "Ra's understanding of the archetypes" is a load of bunk. They have no set dogma or understanding on the archetypes. They have leads but nothing substantial that can be considered "objective".

dogma - a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

---

The whole curatorship of this forum is based on a premise that is demonstrably proven incorrect by the above.

[vervex]

Beautifully said.

/exits

[isis]

[JustLikeYou]

The whole curatorship of this forum is based on a premise that is demonstrably proven incorrect by the above.

It is common in the academic philosophy world for professors to write dissertations and commentaries on eminent philosophers. If I end up in a Ph.D. program, I will probably write on Wittgenstein. In giving myself over to such a focused study of one unique, but profound perspective I necessarily sacrifice inclusion of other perspectives. Indeed, the whole purpose of such a work would be to understand Wittgenstein himself as clearly as possible.

And yet no one in the field actually thinks that when you write a dissertation dedicated to one perspective that you therefore embrace that perspective dogmatically. What a philosopher writes her dissertation on has no bearing on what she believe or does not believe, but concerns rather where her interests lie. I find Wittgenstein's writing to be beautiful, inspiring, surprisingly practical, and more lucid than nearly any other I've read, yet I don't buy into his claims just because they are his, or just because I am interested enough to engage in a focused study.

The spirit in which guidelines and curation of this forum were conceived is the same.

[Adonai One]

Indeed the spirit represented by the deletion of my replies in this very thread. I stand by my case. This is a standard I will not support.

[JustLikeYou]

The topic of this thread is the concept of a dogmatic approach to the archetypes and whether a forum dedicated to Ra's specific take on them is dogmatic. Those posts were tangential commentary on academic philosophy, which I only introduced as a metaphor, so they were pruned.

[Patrick]

88.24 ...As you can see, much work was done creatively by each initiate. We have no dogma to offer. Each perceives that which is needful and helpful to the self...

...They have no set dogma or understanding on the archetypes. They have leads but nothing substantial that can be considered "objective"...

Objectivity is subjective.

"...Each perceives that which is needful and helpful to the self..."

This says it all !

Truly, there are no right answers.