Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

[AnthroHeart]

I honestly don't know what I believe. I never really get confirmation that's solid. I have an atheist friend who's somewhat understandable his position. I really hope there is an afterlife. I believe in one.

[Parsons]

The thing is, that's what I have done and I am not convinced at all of the Law of One. I have read the thing and other similar texts and can see how such things emerge from the mind but that doesn't mean that they have any basis in in reality.


As I've repeatedly stated my distrust of the new age movement I may as well give you some reasons why

In my observations of generic new agers I have seen the following. Honestly I have seen this so many times it's not even funny. These are the general stages:

1. The self congratulatory self appointed title of "seeker", variations include "truth seeker" and "awake" (as opposed to the "sleeping" aka people who do not hold the same beliefs), as the individual progresses on this journey they will eventually label themselves with many identities (you would think the spiritually enlightened would have found themselves) my personal fav was guy who called himself "the lantern bearer" shining light the world lol.

Many people get caught up in the "labeling" phase as a form of self-validation of new beliefs which they feel are on shaky ground. I will sometimes use labels in my private thoughts (such as "adept" or "seeker) and will sometimes use those terms as shorthand when discussing something. Eg, "seeker" is much shorter than explaining "I am a seeker of existential philosophy, spirituality, etc etc" when discussing something. However, I do shy away from using titles in any other context besides shorthand and very rarely even discuss this stuff with random acquaintances or strangers.

Specifically the "awake" label is difficult to get past and is most politically correct term I can think of (again) for the sake of discussion. To be critical of those using that term (including myself), I would say there are many degrees or shades of awakening. To view yourself as 'superior' because you are 'awake', I find to be inappropriate. All the label means (to me at least) is you have the potential to evolve beyond the average person of this 3rd density, or the label could mean you haven't evolved beyond the unconscious archetypal programming you are exhibiting (again, not to be confused to 'superior' or 'better' or 'other than').

2. A certain excitement at having widened one's scope of what could be conceived to be possible sweeps over the individual which often results in them becoming a slave to their own imagination as the fantasies they entertain are suddenly much more plausible given that the individual now believes that anything is possible or everything is true. This allows for rampant escapism which is essentially regression.

I most definitely went through this phase and I have observed many get stuck in this phase for a long time or the remainder of their lifetime. I certainly consider many things (such as 'telepathy') to be much more plausible, but tend to be very conservative and carefully consider what I deem plausible. I also suffered from escapism for a time, although I feel I have moved past that as I had very 'challenging' experiences directly related to that. While I can see how it could be considered 'regression', I ended up bouncing back from that and feel that I ended much further down my own path than from where I started as a result.

3. The individual feels that the thoughts they stumble upon are now cosmic insights that need to be shared with the world as they are now "awake" and have a moral duty to enlighten others.

I also went through this phase and consider it to be extremely common amongst 'seekers'(using that word for shorthand purposes only ). Even though I know that sharing this with everyone is a breach of their free will (if you remember that concept from the material), you want to 'help' people by sharing information that you found so personally helpful. IMO it is the same impulse of door to door religion salesmen 'sharing the good news'. I have gotten to the point where I only share anything related to this with my close friends and family and people in this forum community. Very occasionally I will share my own philosophy with some random person if they bring up something directly related to that first (I can't stress enough how rare this is).

4. The individual slowly becomes more and more dissociated, drunk on the belief that they are witness to a transcendental experience of existence, common experience gets interpreted through magical thinking which fuels the fantasy which fuels the dissociation. The individual withdraws more and more into themselves and their own constructed little world.

I'm not sure I share any common ground to comment on this too much really. From my standpoint, it seems like a combination of projections which I can't disentangle.

5. Everyone else is wrong apart from them and the ideas they concocted without any feedback since others are trapped in the material maze. The dismissal of the scientific method occasionally happens but I've seen just as many people try and twist scientific discovery to suit their transcendent agenda, these people almost never understand science.

I can't say I agree with the notion there is no feedback for those who subscribe to this type of 'theory'. On the contrary, I feel I have considered plenty of normal feedback and also have recognized a feedback system that I had completely ignored as an atheist (the faculty of intuition). I most definitely believe in the scientific method to this day, however it has a very limited scope as not all information can be analysed by it. I often agree with scientific discovery, although I often do not agree with the 'how' and 'why' the conclusions are made due to glaring conflicts with my general worldview. From my standpoint, atheists often twist scientific discovery to agree with their materialistic viewpoint of consciousness somehow being solely generated by a biochemical process. Conversely, I agree religious/spiritual people also often twist scientific discovery with no thought of objectivity.

That's why I consider the notions found in the Ra Material not only to be false but also dangerous since it is conducive to this kind of behaviour...

Anyways, I am still very open to discussion.

If that is the case then why are you here? You claim to be here to openly discuss this but contradict yourself by saying this material is false and dangerous due to promoting 'undesirable behavior'. Actually, that statement makes it seems like you are here to preach your own worldview to the choir of people with 'opposing' worldviews.

Actually, I find this circumstance to be extremely ironically hilarious... From what I've read, you have almost the exact same worldview/way of thinking back when I was an atheist. So it's almost as though I am looking into a mirror at my past self and trying explain to my reflection how and why I have changed.

Anyways, I am still very open to discussion.

[Account1]

Terrence Mckenna is another great source, both of whom have numerous video's on you tube.

Mckenna was very intelligent and interesting but I believe has caused more harm than good with the countless fanboys hiking out to the woods doing shrooms in the hopes of attaining cosmic insight who end up getting committed to wards.

Sadly, the "phenomenon" of channeling is not what a lot of people think it is, a way of attaining cosmic truths from ethereal aliens, but rather a way of accessing thoughts that lie very dormant in the mind. The study of mythology will show, even to the layman that there are certain ideas which lie so deeply embedded in the human psyche that have seen various manifestations depending on the context of the civilization in question. I'm not surprised at all that the manifestation in the 80s was aliens (that Don guy also said in the multiple sessions of people he held meditation/channeling meetings with that the messages were consistently religious in matter and supposedly from aliens), is that reason enough to assume that it really was aliens telling us all to love each other?

These ideas are deep, archaic ones thus the "resonance". An ancient surrogate that's easier to understand than reality. The lazy mind takes the path of least resistance. No educated christian (possible slight exaggeration) has believed the literal interpretation of the bible since St. Augustine yet you still see it today since it's just easier for some people to digest. I didn't really find much in the Ra Material that wasn't an obvious adaption of previous ideas, and I refuse to believe that these ideas are true simply because in this book big words are used to explain them lol

What was once deity and demon is now extraterrestrial, it's the same image in the psyche under different forms necessitated by adaption and development, the same hinting at transcendence, perfected adaptability, a higher threshold of being. If you don't believe me study the history of madness, the chaotic management of thought (in which the individual often randomly pulls out thought from the dark recesses of the mind), what was once demons and magicians is now government surveillance and aliens since they both afford the same all encompassing and transcendent qualities (at least to the disorganized mind).

I stumbled on the Ra Material in a Google search and was enthralled in the system of reality presented which I found to make more logical sense than my atheistic viewpoint. I was shocked how the much larger worldview contained therein explained the slight logical inconsistencies in my previous worldview and encompased the few things I agreed with in religion.

In my poking around I saw that you feverishly defended the idea of "abrupt harvest" and advocated the work of known cranks, I hardly think you are as rational as you claim but rather enjoy imagining yourself as such as it boosts the self esteem and justifies holding such bizarre beliefs.

Many self appointed "skeptics" today are just kids who read pop sci (the quote up the top is from Degrasse Tyson for goodness sake) and debate religion to feel superior to their parents without bothering to read theological works or understanding science (natural philosophy). Like the misguided youths that absorb the bullshit of the philosophical jesters they grossly overestimate their analytic capabilities.

My friend, I highly recommend you read the analysis of the Ra Material contained within the website http://we-are-1.net. It is an extremely good (and long) analysis of the material from someone who is very left-brained/logically/scientifically oriented.

Thanks for the link, I'll read. The left/right brain idea is a myth by the way.

I would add that for me its more a model of reality which is per definition not perfect. But like in science models are useful to understand connections and processes.

There is no perfect model, unfortunately.

Since you mentioned university papers, cognitive disorder and magical thinking I assume you have a psychological background. Im curious what your model of reality is.

Well, close. I'm not a logical positivist (they haven't been around since Godel really) in case that's the vibe I'm giving off lol, I don't really enjoy labeling myself with philosophies as one would pick out clothes but I guess I fall into the naturalism stream. My own model however is quite technical.

I do not believe in anything and I believe in everything.

You also believe that holding an inconsistent worldview is acceptable. I personally find that dishonest and dishonourable, but I'm an old fashioned guy.

---

I'm not sure I share any common ground to comment on this too much really. From my standpoint, it seems like a combination of projections which I can't disentangle.

It's from direct experience with people who have sought my help

If that is the case then why are you here? You claim to be here to openly discuss this but contradict yourself by saying this material is false and dangerous due to promoting 'undesirable behavior'. Actually, that statement makes it seems like you are here to preach your own worldview to the choir of people with 'opposing' worldviews.

I'm here to see if there's anything to learn. I feel obliged to share my view to get the ball rolling, I didn't see too many "maybe we're wrong" kind of threads so I thought I might voice some ideas. Wanting to openly discuss something yet believing it to be false is not a contradiction...

---

Actually, that statement makes it seems like you are here to preach your own worldview to the choir of people with 'opposing' worldviews.

And that statement makes you seem very reluctant to hear opposing views. I am allowed to be here am I not? I am asking some questions sharing my views, I will be out of your hair soon, I'm hoping for a mutually beneficial outcome where we can all learn something.

[Adonai One]

Many self appointed "skeptics" today are just kids who read pop sci (the quote up the top is from Degrasse Tyson for goodness sake) and debate religion to feel superior to their parents without bothering to read theological works or understanding science (natural philosophy). Like the misguided youths that absorb the bullshit of the philosophical jesters they grossly overestimate their analytic capabilities.

Please stay on this forum and continue to raise the intellectual vibration of this place, Account1. You're a godsend.

[Parsons]

I stumbled on the Ra Material in a Google search and was enthralled in the system of reality presented which I found to make more logical sense than my atheistic viewpoint. I was shocked how the much larger worldview contained therein explained the slight logical inconsistencies in my previous worldview and encompased the few things I agreed with in religion.

In my poking around I saw that you feverishly defended the idea of "abrupt harvest" and advocated the work of known cranks, I hardly think you are as rational as you claim but rather enjoy imagining yourself as such as it boosts the self esteem and justifies holding such bizarre beliefs.

Yes, indeed I did, several years ago. Hence my admittance of thinking in terms of escapism in the post you quoted from. Attempting to claim someone presently doesn't use logical thinking because they briefly thought illogically in the past is an extremely facile argument. I could do the same for you by pointing out you believed in the tooth fairy as a child (or something like that). People grow and change, contrary to popular belief.

Many self appointed "skeptics" today are just kids who read pop sci (the quote up the top is from Degrasse Tyson for goodness sake) and debate religion to feel superior to their parents without bothering to read theological works or understanding science (natural philosophy). Like the misguided youths that absorb the bullshit of the philosophical jesters they grossly overestimate their analytic capabilities.

Hah, you most definitely think exactly like I did. I was so disenfranchised with religion/spirituality I also just made broad assumptions about anyone who espoused it. I was so bad I didn't even know there was a new age movement. My strong belief/assumption was that anyone who believed in such nonsensical bullshit could not think scientifically, which I have now found is not the case. I basically subconsciously stopped listening when anyone started talking about spirituality. I also believed I was logically flaying my opponent when I bothered debating them on the subject even though I wasn't actually seriously entertaining their worldview.

For the record, my mother and maternal grandmother are atheists and my dad just didn't care or talk about it growing up. So I was not rebelling against them and they let me come to my own conclusions. I also did not get into this type of thing until I was 25ish (not very youthful) and do not resonate with any of the 'new age guru' types.

[Account1]

Yes, indeed I did, several years ago. Hence my admittance of thinking in terms of escapism in the post you quoted from. Attempting to claim someone presently doesn't use logical thinking because they briefly thought illogically in the past is an extremely facile argument. I could do the same for you by pointing out you believed in the tooth fairy as a child (or something like that). People grow and change, contrary to popular belief.

When I saw the date of the threads in question I went to change my post but my connection kept timing out. Sorry. For the record though I never believed in the tooth fairy or santa claus or things like that and it's not a very good analogy since the rate of growth as a child is drastically more intense than a few years in the 20's.

My strong belief/assumption was that anyone who believed in such nonsensical bullshit could not think scientifically, which I have now found is not the case. I basically subconsciously stopped listening when anyone started talking about spirituality. I also believed I was logically flaying my opponent when I bothered debating them on the subject even though I wasn't actually seriously entertaining their worldview.

We do not think alike at all. I have seriously entertained this worldview, I read the five books (as well as a bunch of other new age stuff) and held it in consideration and found that it didn't hold up. I do not think it's nonsensical bullshit, I think it's archaic and irresponsible to hold in this day and age. Like I said earlier I can't just dismiss something if it makes such extraordinary claims without investigation. I'm not here to display a sense of superior thought, I'm not some kid who learned some fallacies in phi101 and now thinks he's a logician lol, if you're going to try and dismiss me on the grounds that I am like the caricature you have carved out for me there is nothing to be gained here for either of us.

For the record, my mother and maternal grandmother are atheists and my dad just didn't care or talk about it growing up. So I was not rebelling against them and they let me come to my own conclusions. I also did not get into this type of thing until I was 25ish (not very youthful) and do not resonate with any of the 'new age guru' types.

The generalization I made about skeptics was an observation from people I know personally. I was not talking about you.

[Adonai One]

I wish to share myself with you, Account1. I see visions, I see apparitions, I have encountered a phenomena known as possession. However, I constantly open myself open to the idea and possibility that my neurology is faulty, or that I may just simply be very subconsciously delusional. I partake in spirituality at a distance without ever clinging to it.

Am I well to contemplate the paranormal without any indication of absolute proof of it? Why should one not do this in this way?

[Account1]

Firstly Adonai One I would refrain from regarding things in extremity. Things are not always black and white. I very much doubt this is a case of spiritual revelation vs neurological defection.

You are self aware enough to entertain the idea of being wrong and/or mad, this indicates that if you are under a certain degree of delusion you are certainly not beyond the point of no return. Visions and apparitions are somewhat worrying, these are manifestations of your own mind, this is important to remember. If these get out of hand I definitely suggest seeking psychological help, I understand many people fear doing so in case they get misdiagnosed or find out there is in fact something faulty in themselves but in the long run it's for the best. Maybe just a counselor for starters, it sounds like you could use someone to give you honest unbiased feedback on your personal thoughts. I think you will be fine you might just need to smooth out some kinks.

My advice would be to evaluate your own views and experiences critically and honestly, do not be quick to assume the unprovable or the unfalsifiable and rebuild a somewhat more rudimentary worldview from the ground up. Don't preoccupy yourself with the uncertainties before you establish the certainties. Also it's important I think to focus on the truth and not try and steer truth to a predetermined location of your choice (confirmation bias). Don't be afraid of the opinions and views of others, you can see a lot farther if you stand on the shoulders of giants. Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.

Am I well to contemplate the paranormal without any indication of absolute proof of it? Why should one not do this in this way?

It is perhaps the way you have gone about it which has caused you such troubles. If you have obsessed over this stuff you probably interpreted a lot of experience in an unusual manner. I don't want to say it's "wrong" to hold this stuff in interest but due to the way transcendent themes entices so many I think a lot fall into the realm of obsession in regards to it and obsession in any form is unhealthy.

Just ease up. Personally I think there's little to be gained investigating such things as I have spent a fair amount of time myself and reading the works of others who were also interested (esp. parapsychology) and really I don't think there's much of worth to be gleaned and our efforts are better spent elsewhere. Best of luck.

---

Like I said before I've seen the new age transcendental cosmic notions suck in a lot of people. If you do find yourself later to regard this stuff as false do not be too harsh on yourself because it happens to heaps of people, it's the same old story.

[Adonai One]

Alright, I have a healthy social life and I am very happy. I am perfectly functional in every regard towards life's usual ends. I have a wife and happy moments abound. Why would I ever need psychological help with what I am experiencing if I am happy?

Sure, this might all be fake illusions of the mind but why fix something that doesn't hurt?

[Account1]

Why would I ever need psychological help with what I am experiencing if I am happy?

Because you are seeing things that are not there. I'm sorry if my answer was a bit presumptuous but you asked and said you have visions, you've gotta understand that's a pretty big red flag lol

What you described sounded a lot like what a friend of mine went through so I was basically basing my advice off what I learnt through that experience as I have very little data on you. Hearing that you have a healthy social and marital life changes things a bit. There is a chance you are using the word "vision" to describe the interpretation of a n experience that others may not label the same way, anyways I'm not really the guy to ask.

Happiness as an end goal is a bit selfish but I understand it's firmly embedded into the USA psyche and I'm not going to argue on that front. Again, I don't think you're crazy but the attitude that "it feels good so it must be good/beneficial" is naive.

[Adonai One]

Happiness is my only goal and what I get is happiness. I don't see what there is to lose.

If the alternative is self-sacrifice and suffering... I find that to be a very unintelligent alternative. I see Hedonism as the only logical philosophy. I don't see how the animal kingdom could benefit from embracing so much suffering that its species choose to commit suicide.

[Account1]

Happiness is my only goal and what I get is happiness. I don't see what there is to lose.

Fair enough I just don't get some people's obsession with happiness and determining the value of one's existence by happiness, I honestly just don't understand it, it's foreign to me but I find extremely common in Americans (for obvious reasons). I'm not entirely against it I just don't understand the "pursuit" I guess.

If the alternative is self-sacrifice and suffering... I find that to be a very unintelligent alternative. I see Hedonism as the only logical philosophy. I don't see how the animal kingdom could benefit from embracing so much suffering that its species choose to commit suicide.

Like I said earlier things aren't so simple that there are only two options, the world isn't black and white man.You may see hedonism as the only logical philosophy but you would be hard pressed to find anyone that agrees with that sentiment that isn't a teenager who overdosed on Stirner (one of the philosophical jesters alluded to above). That doesn't mean that only possible alternative is the worship of self sacrifice and suffering I find both of the options you present as pretty funny really.

[Adonai One]

Show me a man that does not seek happiness nor suffering that does not hunger for something more and is not dissatisfied in their present position.

If you find this hunger acceptable, then by all means embrace it to its furthest ends. I choose to feel complete and perfect: Happy. That is The Law of One and that is what I believe is the purpose of this book.

Not only do I find this book useless for most intellectuals, I find that its truest principle, the actual Law of One, is useless for most of this community presently: Few here seem to want to embrace the actual, bloody law.

This book is not only trivialist: It is most hedonistic.

5.2...To begin to master the concept of mental discipline it is necessary to examine the self. The polarity of your dimension must be internalized. Where you find patience within your mind you must consciously find the corresponding impatience and vice versa. Each thought that a being has, has in its turn an antithesis. The disciplines of the mind involve, first of all, identifying both those things of which you approve and those things of which you disapprove within yourself, and then balancing each and every positive and negative charge with its equal. The mind contains all things. Therefore, you must discover this completeness within yourself.

The second mental discipline is acceptance of the completeness within your consciousness. It is not for a being of polarity in the physical consciousness to pick and choose among attributes, thus building the roles that cause blockages and confusions in the already-distorted mind complex. Each acceptance smoothes part of the many distortions that the faculty you call judgment engenders...

[Account1]

Show me a man that does not seek happiness nor suffering that does not hunger for something more and is not dissatisfied in their present position.

Show me an honest man. [Diogenes' internally]

Fair enough Adonai One, we may not agree but I've enjoyed talking to you. In conclusion I think you're right on one thing, this book is useless for me personally, though I am not a utilitarian I can't deny I have no use for it. Even if it were true it would add nothing to my life and would be inconsequential to my ambitions by it's own premises (if it were true I would just keep re-incarnating until I have achieved sufficient violet ray vibration to withstand the next the density regardless of what I learned or achieved in this life. I don't really care for such scenarios as I am satisfied with a single life nor am I convinced of the reality of re-incarnation/eternal soul/astral stuff).

Cheers bring4th

[Adonai One]

Account1, I am honored to see you on this forum; Truly honored. I wish you well in every capacity. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

[Unbound]

Happiness is my only goal and what I get is happiness. I don't see what there is to lose.

Fair enough I just don't get some people's obsession with happiness and determining the value of one's existence by happiness, I honestly just don't understand it, it's foreign to me but I find extremely common in Americans (for obvious reasons). I'm not entirely against it I just don't understand the "pursuit" I guess.

If the alternative is self-sacrifice and suffering... I find that to be a very unintelligent alternative. I see Hedonism as the only logical philosophy. I don't see how the animal kingdom could benefit from embracing so much suffering that its species choose to commit suicide.

Like I said earlier things aren't so simple that there are only two options, the world isn't black and white man.You may see hedonism as the only logical philosophy but you would be hard pressed to find anyone that agrees with that sentiment that isn't a teenager who overdosed on Stirner (one of the philosophical jesters alluded to above). That doesn't mean that only possible alternative is the worship of self sacrifice and suffering I find both of the options you present as pretty funny really.

Thank god, I was thinking about this very thing today and pondering how bizarre it was for myself that I really don't have a focus on happiness or contentment in my life but it seems I am not the only one.

[Ashim]

Well at the last Council meeting the members of Ra from the Sirius A System appeared very real to me.
Tall humanoid Felines.

So that makes it a 'yes' from me then.

[Unbound]

I miss my furry folk.

[βαθμιαίος]

As I've repeatedly stated my distrust of the new age movement I may as well give you some reasons why

Can you state some of your objections to the Law of One material itself? Your objections to the new age movement don't seem all that relevant to these books.

[JustLikeYou]

Yes, let's start with objections. It's not fair to judge all contemporary film on the basis of mainstream Hollywood. The same applies here.

[Billy]

You've mirrored to me my fear that all of this may be false and ultimately one big delusion. This makes me feel uncomfortable and even resentful towards you because the concepts in this book and spirituality in general give me strength and hope. Thanks for helping me understand myself better. Ohh Ra just reveal yourself to me already and prove to me the existence of an infinite creator that loves and supports us all unconditionally. Heheh.......sigh.

[Account1]

Can you state some of your objections to the Law of One material itself? Your objections to the new age movement don't seem all that relevant to these books.

Like I said you can find these ideas elsewhere, because they are archaic, I was trying to kill two birds with one stone.

Ok as for the books themselves, the transcendent notions really get me as there absolutely no indication that they hold any basis in reality.

1. The system by which one achieves polarization (acceptance which has a corresponding affect on the violet ray vibration) which results in the product of a orientation of service (STO/STS) and a method attaining higher realms of existence is just put out there, by what mechanic does this actually function, "time/space" magic?

2. Relying on Larson to be correct is a right laugh, of course it's easy to do when you don't understand science (but believe you do) or philosophy, his work is heavily philosophical and contains no evidence or mathematical proofs, it's not going to be proven *anytime* soon so hoping that it will is just sad.

3. The human history aspect is incredibly suss, especially how Ra is always messing up the numbers (sometimes contradicting more recently discovered evidence) but has a convenient "our number systems are different so we're allowed to be wrong here" cop out.

4. The association with Uri Geller, a fraud, people will say "but the only reason Uri couldn't magic around Randi was because it would infringe free will as it would tear the popular narrative that magic isn't real asunder" give me a break lol. Andrijia Puharich's wife was quoted noting the gullibility of her husband in his parapsychological investigations.

5. The whole cosmology is childish and lacks sophistication.

6. The "all is one" sentiment, wow what insight, every whole is a part of another greater whole, thank you kindergarten. If your frame of reference is the entire universe than yes, of course all must be regarded as one, but is a human the entire universe?

7. Harvest= modern analogue of the idea of purification, past analogues have included Buddhist ascension and christian salvation. Also, many people get messiah like about it which is of course distasteful.

8. Wanderers- just textbook hero journey stuff (this has been in the human mind since at least Gilgamesh), of course people love identifying as wanderers, makes 'em feel special. Of course such a ridiculous concept can fit into the model of reality that the Law of One provides since the model accounts for everything ever, which is the appeal and it's biggest flaw.

9. Orion - Convenient faceless, all encompassing enemies to blame.

10. preveil- Yeah, the idea of innocence lost (introduction of "evil" STS) is allegory for humans evolving from the animal psyche read the bible or any world mythology lol. Like I said these ideas have been around for forever and take new forms depending on context. You're pumping words out of an unconscious woman you're gonna see stuff like this, deep thoughts from the unconscious, taking it literally and thinking that an alien is at work is weird lol.

[Billy]

Dude your honesty and insight is fricking awesome.

---

I guess I have to ask where these unconscious thoughts come from and why they have been so consistent in the minds of humans for such a long period of time? This is probably too big a question for you to fully respond to. Thanks bro.

---

Someone hold me.

[isis]

6. The "all is one" sentiment, wow what insight, every whole is a part of another greater whole, thank you kindergarten.

lol

[Account1]

I guess I have to ask where these unconscious thoughts come from and why they have been so consistent in the minds of humans for such a long period of time? This is probably too big a question for you to fully respond to. Thanks bro.

huge question yeah

That's the mystery I believe people should be concerning themselves with rather than "how do I become enlightened?". I think there's a certain degree of necessity in these thoughts (really better termed representations of images or symbols) as I think they had a positive impact on the survival of the species and successful adaption but perhaps there is more to it but i don't like to assume the existence or reality of something just because I enjoy the thought of it being true. I mean like I said before, why does life wish to perpetuate itself, if these thoughts are evolutionary products how did they come to be? It's an ongoing investigation, Carl Jung was really the pioneer into that sort of thing, it's really a shame the way he has been bastardized by the new age community. Word of warning though, if you guys go reading him, that's before psychology was empirical so it's old and parts are outdated, still very worth looking into though.

short answer: I don't know, I spend a lot of time eroding my ignorance on the subject and I doubt it's the sort of thing that can be discerned within a single lifetime.

[Adonai One]

If there were a veil, it would be the fact we cannot see below 300 nanometers in wavelength (ultraviolet light).

[Billy]

I believe that we all have an innate desire to be loved, accepted and to find a place where we truly do belong. I don't know about you guys, but these desires are so intense for me that I am willing to delude myself in order to fulfill them. I so wish that we are all unconditionally loved, supported and accepted. How wonderful that would be.

---

Im losing it guys, I'm going off the deep end. What else can you do at a time like this except dance whilst laughing uncontrollably. *flails arms around while laughing like a maniac*.

[JustLikeYou]

As a whole, your objections have a very snarky language to them. It is clear to me that you are not actually interested in understanding why anyone would "actually believe this stuff." This is unfortunate, too, because I think your objections could have been raised with more force if you had taken the task seriously.

First, I'm going to object to your assertion that the Ra Material is unhealthy because people read it and think unhealthy things. Shall we, then, consider Nietzsche unhealthy because he inspired Nazis? Shall we bury Hegel because it begat Marx's ill-conceived ideology?

This is a dubious line of thinking. People will misunderstand no matter what you say or how you say it.

1. The system by which one achieves polarization (acceptance which has a corresponding affect on the violet ray vibration) which results in the product of a orientation of service (STO/STS) and a method attaining higher realms of existence is just put out there, by what mechanic does this actually function, "time/space" magic?

Ra is using concept of magnetism here. The idea is that the complex self has many elements in it which are oriented STS (south), STO (north) or in some other direction entirely, just like the magnetic orientation of particles in a body. These metaphysical particles (if you will) are nodes in the psyche, areas of specific (in a simple particle) or broad (in a complex particle) concern. So think of your individual relationships with others, the various traits you do or don't like about yourself and others, etc., etc.

Metaphysical particles in the self can be either intentionally or accidentally polarized. Accidental polarization is a state of consciousness reached without knowing how you got there. So some event happens, a crisis, say, and everything clarifies for you and you know exactly what to do without all the emotional baggage you'd usually have. This is like placing a body in the field of a strong magnet. The body will temporarily polarize, but once the strong magnet is removed, the body will rapidly lose its polarization.

Intentional polarization is the mechanism of consciously finding each metaphysical element (i.e. knowing yourself) and orienting it either North or South. The method of changing the polarity of a metaphysical particle of self differs depending on direction. The north direction requires acceptance of the particle in reference to both self and other; whereas the south direction requires authority over the particle in self and other.

You might keep in mind that Ra treats the non-physical reality as if it has a set of natural laws just like those studied by physicists in the physical reality. These laws are simply there. They do not explain themselves (though Ra does); they simply give reality the structure it has. We observe them and record their consistency. These natural laws of the metaphysical reality are the same laws that religions have been attempting to enunciate for as far back as history remembers. Just as Aristotle got lots of things wrong in his physical description, so we should expect that even the most prominent spiritual figures in history may not have gotten it all right.

2. Relying on Larson to be correct is a right laugh, of course it's easy to do when you don't understand science (but believe you do) or philosophy, his work is heavily philosophical and contains no evidence or mathematical proofs, it's not going to be proven *anytime* soon so hoping that it will is just sad.

Don was the one fascinated with Larson. He questioned Ra and Ra said that it "is a correct system as far as it is able to go" (20.7). Given these caveats, I don't see how it impacts Ra's philosophy: Ra didn't fully endorse it themselves.

3. The human history aspect is incredibly suss, especially how Ra is always messing up the numbers (sometimes contradicting more recently discovered evidence) but has a convenient "our number systems are different so we're allowed to be wrong here" cop out.

If you're not going to read charitably (i.e. by assuming that the author is speaking accurately and truthfully and then piecing the story together in the most coherent way possible), I suggest you don't read at all. Criticism encultures its medium, but cynicism only infects it.

4. The association with Uri Geller, a fraud, people will say "but the only reason Uri couldn't magic around Randi was because it would infringe free will as it would tear the popular narrative that magic isn't real asunder" give me a break lol. Andrijia Puharich's wife was quoted noting the gullibility of her husband in his parapsychological investigations.

I don't see how this is relevant to Ra's philosophy. It bespeaks another one of Don's fascinations.

5. The whole cosmology is childish and lacks sophistication.

On the contrary, it is the most sophisticated cosmology I have seen yet. In fact, studying this material has made fantasy almost impossible for me to enjoy: the incongruities and over-simplifications of most cosmologies invented by fantasy authors render their systems laughable in comparison to Ra's.

So tell me, what do you mean by "childish" and "lacks sophistication"? I can't respond especially well until you define these pejorative terms.

6. The "all is one" sentiment, wow what insight, every whole is a part of another greater whole, thank you kindergarten. If your frame of reference is the entire universe than yes, of course all must be regarded as one, but is a human the entire universe?

The Law of One (or the "all is one" sentiment as you call it) is not the principle that any plurality can be grouped into a whole. It is that the whole is One without differentiation, that these differentiations are illusory (illusory does not mean "non-existent"; it means "incorrectly perceived"). And, according to Ra's cosmogenesis, the creation begins with a mystery: the One became many through the mysterious onset of awareness. That is, the One discovered itself as Subject to itself as Object. This distinction is the basic premise on which the material world could be produced by something that is indivisibly one.

As you know, a subject contains its object in itself in a multitude of ways: we project our baises upon others, we construct phenomenological accounts of our experience; we seek meaning in a world that never told us it had meaning. Similarly, the object also contains the subject: there is no way to distinguish the perceiving self from the reality it observes. The two are inextricably linked.

If all existence is built around this one discovery, then it should not be surprising that the Law of One has the property of holography. The identity between human and universe, however, is not one which is meant to be perceived within this specific illusion: the whole point was to experience the many, not to remember the One without any effort.

7. Harvest= modern analogue of the idea of purification, past analogues have included Buddhist ascension and christian salvation. Also, many people get messiah like about it which is of course distasteful.

What is recognized by all of these perspectives is the existence of some kind of transition from this experience to another. All of these systems are attempting to articulate a natural metaphysical law (an archetype).

I don't understand how this is an objection.

8. Wanderers- just textbook hero journey stuff (this has been in the human mind since at least Gilgamesh), of course people love identifying as wanderers, makes 'em feel special. Of course such a ridiculous concept can fit into the model of reality that the Law of One provides since the model accounts for everything ever, which is the appeal and it's biggest flaw.

The hero is an archetype. It names a natural law embedded into the structure of the human mind. That it is expressed by many cultures is what one would expect.

"[I]t accounts for everything ever" is not something I can intelligently respond to.

9. Orion - Convenient faceless, all encompassing enemies to blame.

Straw man:
(a) Orion is only one group amony many STS grousp.
(b) Ra avoids all blame conversation. They are very careful about being seen as "judging" (by which Ra means moral condemnation).
© Don's questions, as always, lead the conversation where it goes. Ra simply answers.

10. preveil- Yeah, the idea of innocence lost (introduction of "evil" STS) is allegory for humans evolving from the animal psyche read the bible or any world mythology lol. Like I said these ideas have been around for forever and take new forms depending on context. You're pumping words out of an unconscious woman you're gonna see stuff like this, deep thoughts from the unconscious, taking it literally and thinking that an alien is at work is weird lol.

(a) Again, we're dealing with an archetype.
(b) I've met Carla. There is no way she invented this, conscious or unconscious. In fact, I gave the Ra Material the time of day because its philosophical undergirding is so sophisticated that I knew no one could have made it up on the spot. Perhaps after years of thinking, but even then you couldn't have a conversation with the inventor and still find complete internal coherence.

[Account1]

As a whole, your objections have a very snarky language to them.

Please forgive me and cease the wheel of karma from turning. A lot of tonal context is lost in the communicative medium of text, keep that in mind lol.

First, I'm going to object to your assertion that the Ra Material is unhealthy because people read it and think unhealthy things. Shall we, then, consider Nietzsche unhealthy because he inspired Nazis? Shall we bury Hegel because it begat Marx's ill-conceived ideology?

Wel Nietzche literally was unhealthy lol I see what you mean but c'mon respect the proportions of the proposition.

JLY, the parts I talked about such as Larson and Geller, "Don's fascinations" as you termed them may not be central to the philosophy as proposed by Ra but are parts of the text and you did ask me for my objections to the text not the philosophy. Also, "as far as the theory can go" is really quite far, Larsons theory is large in scope and accounts for a lot of what Ra says to be true in book II, you can't just dismiss it. Also Ra did say Geller was the real deal and the phenomenon is possible under Ra's model, so are you cherry picking or do you believe Geller can bend spoons with his mind?

If you're not going to read charitably (i.e. by assuming that the author is speaking accurately and truthfully and then piecing the story together in the most coherent way possible), I suggest you don't read at all. Criticism encultures its medium, but cynicism only infects it.

*raises eyebrow*

Straw man

Lol hardly, what I meant was that the Orion was the analogue for the devil in the grand space opera that is the Law of One.

I'm glad you came out and said the word archetype, ok you at least partially understand what I'm getting at here, honestly a great relief.

I've met Carla. There is no way she invented this, conscious or unconscious

You can never be sure of what lies in someone's unconscious, to do so is very naive. I'm not trying to be condescending here I'm just genuinely surprised you said that. She had a religious upbringing and spent an awful lot of time with Don Elkins, the more I look into it the Ra Material really seems like Don Elkin's world view which is weird as he was the questioner. Don was obsessed with this stuff, you ever read Oahspe? For him to have the commitment to read that tome (and he did, studied it in depth) is indicative of how deep he was into entertaining cosmic philosophy.

I have work to do but I will come back later

I just have one question JLY, would you have any qualm with this material being false? Do you want it to be true? I'm not trying to logically trap you here I'm just curious.

[Steppingfeet]

Hello Account1,

As I've repeatedly stated my distrust of the new age movement I may as well give you some reasons why

In my observations of generic new agers I have seen the following. Honestly I have seen this so many times it's not even funny. These are the general stages:

1. The self congratulatory self appointed title of "seeker", variations include "truth seeker" and "awake" (as opposed to the "sleeping" aka people who do not hold the same beliefs), as the individual progresses on this journey they will eventually label themselves with many identities (you would think the spiritually enlightened would have found themselves) my personal fav was guy who called himself "the lantern bearer" shining light the world lol.

Labels both serve and disserve, depending upon their use. They can help identify, clarify, and deliver focus and meaning. Conversely, they can readily obscure, confuse, and conflate – becoming opaque to that which they seek to represent or symbolize, especially when there is over-identification and attachment to a label. Much depends upon context and intention.

That said, there are valid meanings and applications for the terms “seeker” and “awake”.

Their mis-use does not mean that there is no appropriate use.


SEEKER
In general and in short, I would define a “seeker” as one who is consciously, as the word implies, seeking the truth for themselves. Tackling and asking themselves fundamental philosophical questions, which typically and may include, “Who am I?”, “What is the meaning and purpose of life?”, “Why is there (so-called) evil?”, “What is my relationship to the universe?”, “What is real, what is not real?”, “What is truth?” etc., etc.

Yes the term has application because “seeking” is not a mode of thought or activity I would ascribe to many of the people on this planet. This is not to elevate the seeker to an ascendant position, just to say that, by my limited estimation, many people on this planet are not actively seeking the truth, whether it be because they are just busy trying to survive, or they are instead reaching for distraction, pleasure, satisfaction, and forgetful sleeping.

It is an orientation of mind that generally manifests itself in activity. There is a wide spectrum of seeking, and as many paths as there are seekers, the Law of One offering one particular path among many, many others.

A few: those truly engaged in the scientific pursuit (i.e., those not using science to create a new warhead, or the next best mousetrap), are seeking the truth in their own way. As are true philosophers seeking to live the wisdom they seek, and true spiritual practitioners and those walking a non-dogmatic religious path.


AWAKE
Being “awake” and “awakening” covers a scale of many degrees and gradations, finding its fullest and most perfect expression (in my thinking at least) in the figure of the Buddha, whether or not historically accurate.

Much as the previous term, it denotes becoming aware of a greater truth or realization, however that process and however that realization may be perceived.

You must be able to look back upon your own life path at this point and realize that, in the organic process of growth and psychological development, especially in the transition from childhood to maturity, old assumptions/truths have dropped away revealing greater realizations, yes? You can see a movement, a trajectory, from misunderstanding to understanding, from, to put it crudely, less truth to more truth.

This can be called awakening, and the process can be made more conscious. Or at least the process can be consciously instigated and pursued.

Awakening isn’t about discovery of information about anything in particular, per se, (though certainly information can be of great aid), but rather and ultimately about awakening from the dream or the illusion of who you thought you were – the mind-made, thought-constructed, past-conditioned self – and stepping into deeper realization of you actually are, and always have been.


You wrote: ”as opposed to the ‘sleeping’ aka people who do not hold the same beliefs”

Certainly this confusion is possible. That is, describing people with different beliefs as “sleeping” simply because they have different beliefs, but the term's mis-use, again, doesn’t mean that the term has no application or meaning.

To be asleep means to be living a life of unconsciousness. That is, blindly and unconsciously carrying out the internalized conditioned patterns of the past. Unconsciously reacting to ones environment. Not consciously reflecting upon, analyzing, studying, and becoming aware of the self: aware not only of the self’s own mind/body patterns, but also and more profoundly aware of the source of awareness within ones self.

2. A certain excitement at having widened one's scope of what could be conceived to be possible sweeps over the individual which often results in them becoming a slave to their own imagination as the fantasies they entertain are suddenly much more plausible given that the individual now believes that anything is possible or everything is true. This allows for rampant escapism which is essentially regression.

Excitement in response to a widened, or deepened, or broadened view is not to be poo-poo’d.

Regarding escapism, this, too, is certainly possible. Such a person, though, is missing the gist of spirituality in that case.

True spiritual seeking (whether or not it utilizes the L/L Research material) necessarily includes testing the validity and veracity and worthwhileness of ones beliefs, ideas, notions, and thoughts in the laboratory of ones incarnation, or life.

*Experience* is the ultimate teacher in the spiritual journey. Because you are the truth that you seek. What you are seeking is not to accumulate knowledge/information, helpful though that may be, but to know, to understand, to accept, and to experience your self. Your actual self.

And while some drift away into untethered mind-mind fantasies that serve to insulate or protect them from suffering of one sort or another, actual spirituality grounds one firmly into the realities of the present moment, bringing one face to face both with the seeming outer realities of dysfunction, confusion, and terrible suffering on this planet, and more so the inner realities of ones own pain, confusion, suffering, and fear.

It is a path of coming to grips with what is.

This particular philosophy, as with the testimony of all mystics, says that what is is oneness, love, and light. Not negating the terrors within the illusion that we all know so well, but stating unequivocally that, on the deeper, or higher, or ultimate level, there is a greater truth than that which surface appearances present.

BUT, no philosophy (the Law of One or otherwise), says to take the message at its word. Rather it encourages *the seeker* to discover the truth for themselves through the instrument of their own body and life, through the way of experiential self-realization.

3. The individual feels that the thoughts they stumble upon are now cosmic insights that need to be shared with the world as they are now "awake" and have a moral duty to enlighten others.

Again, you point in a direction where an individual can indeed go astray, as it were.

Zealotry is a phenomenon that can accompany any major life transition, whether the individual discovers spirituality, religion, or a crazy new diet that caused them to lose 40 pounds without doing a thing!

Social animals that we are, many of us have within us the seeds to convince others, and convert them if possible, to our particular point of view, whatever that may be.

Nevertheless if you familiarize yourself with this particular philosophy more thoroughly you will inevitably strike upon a repeated theme or principle permeating absolutely every fiber of its message. That being: You can only serve another to the extent that it is requested. For instance, if interested in actual exploring/knowing this information, examine these:


****************************************
http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=89&v=e&ss=1#29
“Service is only possible to the extent it is requested.”

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=17&ss=1#2
It is impossible to help another being directly. It is only possible to make catalyst available in whatever form, the most important being the radiation of realization of oneness with the Creator from the self, less important being information such as we share with you.

We encourage a dispassionate attempt to share information without concern for numbers or quick growth among others.

We cannot offer shortcuts to enlightenment. Enlightenment is, of the moment, an opening to intelligent infinity. It can only be accomplished by the self, for the self. Another self cannot teach/learn enlightenment, but only teach/learn information, inspiration, or a sharing of love, of mystery, of the unknown that makes the other-self reach out and begin the seeking process that ends in a moment, but who can know when an entity will open the gate to the present?

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=17&ss=1#30
The best way of service to others is the constant attempt to seek to share the love of the Creator as it is known to the inner self. This involves self knowledge and the ability to open the self to the other-self without hesitation. This involves, shall we say, radiating that which is the essence or the heart of the mind/body/spirit complex.

Speaking to the intention of your question, the best way for each seeker in third density to be of service to others is unique to that mind/body/spirit complex. This means that the mind/body/spirit complex must then seek within itself the intelligence of its own discernment as to the way it may best serve other-selves. This will be different for each. There is no best. There is no generalization. Nothing is known.”

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=18#6
Thus, what would be an improper distortion with one entity is proper with another. We can suggest an attempt to become aware of the other-self as self and thus do that action which is needed by other-self, understanding from the other-self’s intelligence and awareness. In many cases this does not involve the breaking of the distortion of free will into a distortion or fragmentation called infringement. However, it is a delicate matter to be of service, and compassion, sensitivity, and an ability to empathize are helpful in avoiding the distortions of man-made intelligence and awareness.
****************************************


The zealot you describe is not attempting to serve others based upon the *request* of others, but is rather crusading (well-intentioned though he or she may be) in order to convince/convert others.

4. The individual slowly becomes more and more dissociated, drunk on the belief that they are witness to a transcendental experience of existence, common experience gets interpreted through magical thinking which fuels the fantasy which fuels the dissociation. The individual withdraws more and more into themselves and their own constructed little world.

Yes, an extension of your scenario described in number two if it remains unchecked or unbalanced.

5. Everyone else is wrong apart from them and the ideas they concocted without any feedback since others are trapped in the material maze. The dismissal of the scientific method occasionally happens but I've seen just as many people try and twist scientific discovery to suit their transcendent agenda, these people almost never understand science.

Also another possible outcome.

I would venture that you’ve had some experience with this type of person.

That's why I consider the notions found in the Ra Material not only to be false but also dangerous since it is conducive to this kind of behaviour...

As being one who has, for many years, interacted with, worked with, and fallen in love with many people who have made the Law of One the philosophical cornerstone of their own life path, I can attest from personal experience how untrue your statement is, Account1.

You have an idea in your head that Philosophy A leads to Behavior Pattern B, but I have not seen that bear out in the course of going on 15 years of personal experience.

This particular philosophy tends to attract people of considerable grounding, depth, intelligence, sensitivity, compassion, and self-awareness. Naturally there are ever a few who go off the rails, but upwards of 95%, I might venture, do not strongly exhibit the behavior complex you outline.

I hope I’ve offered some food for thought. Thank you for your generally respectful approach to skepticism and questioning.

With love/light,
GLB

PS:

In my poking around I saw that you feverishly defended the idea of "abrupt harvest" and advocated the work of known cranks, I hardly think you are as rational as you claim but rather enjoy imagining yourself as such as it boosts the self esteem and justifies holding such bizarre beliefs.

This is why I said “generally respectful”. You are welcome to disagree and question, Account1. You are not welcome to speak to other members in negative judgment.

Please familiarize yourself with the Guidelines that govern the fair use of the forums, especially the first one: http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=63.