The Ra Material minus the elaborate/ superflous language

[Parsons]

Sometimes when quoting Ra in a thread, I have found myself removing some of the elaborate / extraneous language that Ra uses extremely frequently to attempt to make the text easier to understand. Ra uses that language so frequently, it makes an already difficult material even more difficult to understand.

Now don't get me wrong; I think it is of paramount importance that the material be preserved in it's purest form due to the extreme potential for distortion over time if it is edited, so I don't think that redacting anything from the text is a good idea. A compromise I came up with would be to use the strike through feature. As you can see, the text is still legible. So basically you could read only the non-strike through portion of a sentence transcribed from the Ra contact and understand the essential meaning more easily. The strike-through text would still be immediately available for reading in case the reader subjectively finds the text of importance.

Here is a sample text so you can see what I mean. Try reading it and skipping the parts with strike-through text.

Questioner: Could you tell us something of your historical background, your earlier times in the illusion and the time state[?] contact, possibly your incarnation on this planet that you spoke of before, and contact with earlier races on this planet? Then we would have something to start with in writing this book.
Ra: I am Ra. We are aware that your mind/body is calculating the proper method of performing the task of creating a teach/learning instrument. We are aware that you find our incarnate, as you call it, state of interest. We waited for a second query so as to emphasize that the time/space of several thousand of your years creates a spurious type of interest. Thus in giving this information, we ask the proper lack of stress be placed upon our experiences in your local space/time. The teach/learning which is our responsibility is philosophical rather than historical. We shall now proceed with your request which is harmless if properly evaluated.

We are those of the Confederation who eleven thousand of your years ago came to two of your planetary cultures which were at that time closely in touch with the creation of the One Creator. It was our naïve belief that we could teach/learn by direct contact and the free will distortions of individual feeling or personality were in no danger, we thought,of being disturbed as these cultures were already closely aligned with a[n] all-embracing belief in the live-ness or consciousness of all. We came and were welcomed by the peoples whom we wished to serve. We attempted to aid them in technical ways having to do with the healing of mind/body/spirit complex distortions through the use of the crystal, appropriate to the distortion, placed within a certain appropriate series of ratios of time/space material. Thus were the pyramids created.

We found that the technology was reserved largely for those with the effectual mind/body distortion of power. This was not intended by the Law of One. We left your peoples. The group that was to work with those in the area of South America, as you call that portion of your sphere, gave up not so easily. They returned. We did not. However, we have never left your vibration due to our responsibility for the changes in consciousness we had first caused and then found distorted in ways not relegated to the Law of One. We attempted to contact the rulers of the land to which we had come, that land which you call Egypt, or in some areas, the Holy Land.

In the Eighteenth Dynasty, as it is known in your records of space/time distortions, we were able to contact a pharaoh, as you would call him. The man was small in life-experience on your plane and was a… what this instrument would call, Wanderer. Thus, this mind/body/spirit complex received our communication distortions and was able to blend his distortions with our own. This young entity had been given a vibratory complex of sound which vibrated in honor of a prosperous god, as this mind/body complex, which we call instrument for convenience, would call “Amun.” The entity decided that this name, being in honor of one among many gods, was not acceptable for inclusion in his vibratory sound complex. Thus, he changed his name to one which honored the sun disc. This distortion, called “Aten,” was a close distortion to our reality as we understand our own nature of mind/body/spirit complex distortion. However, it does not come totally into alignment with the intended teach/learning which was sent. This entity, Akhenaten, became convinced that the vibration of One was the true spiritual vibration and thus decreed the Law of One.

However, this entity’s beliefs were accepted by very few. His priests gave lip service only, without the spiritual distortion towards seeking. The peoples continued in their beliefs. When this entity was no longer in this density, again the polarized beliefs in the many gods came into their own and continued so until the one known as Muhammad delivered the peoples into a more intelligible distortion of mind/body/spirit relationships.

Do you have a more detailed interest at this time?

Once you get used to skipping over the strike-through portions, I personally find the material significantly easier to read/understand like this. So what do you guys think? Is it easier to read if you simply skip over the strike-through parts? If so, I think it would be helpful to have a version of the material modified in the same fashion with strike-through on the extraneous language (only). If people really like it, I could create at thread with a complete version of the Ra Material in that form.

An even more elegant solution to this would be a web-page coded so the extraneous text shows up as "spoiler" text instead of strike-through. [spoiler]Spoiler text basically puts an opaque black box over a section of text until you hover your mouse cursor over it to reveal it.[/spoiler] As you can see, the forums currently don't support spoiler text, but I'm pretty sure MyBB can be easily modded to add support for it.

[Aion]

I think the challenge is that it is likely everyone would strike out different parts. So perhaps it can't quite be framed as a universal improvement as some may consider some things vital and other may not.

I do, however, support the approach of attempting to simplify the language that Ra uses but I do think it is hard to see Ra as a personality without that apparently 'flowery' language as it is part of what makes me feel that Ra is speaking, rather than writing. Remember, the Ra Material is a transcription of a conversation, not a book written.

[anagogy]

It may be helpful for some people, but personally I don't like any of that kind of editing. I even prefer the "relistened transcript" of the Ra material because it leaves in all the awkwardly phrased questions and other nuances. I like to get the real picture, even if it isn't glossy. But that's just me, personally.

[Parsons]

I used to be of the same mindset... But really, Ra CONSTANTLY says stuff like "Bob sat in the chair, as the peoples of your culture vocalize it". I get they are a complex of extra-dimensional entities that most likely don't even use vocal language; so it makes sense they constantly make those clarifications. But we all know what a chair is. And really, what percentage of the people reading the material need an explanation of what a pharaoh is or that Egypt is the name of a location on this planet? I'm only talking about strike-through text on SUPER obvious stuff like that. It's not like the text isn't still right there in front of your face, in strike-through form. Not a single word would be removed from the material.

When I read the material, I try to carefully consider everything in a given line of questioning. Sometimes that includes complex / difficult to understand concepts that may have multiple follow up questions from Don. So I try to mash quite a bit into my short term memory and digest it is a whole. My mental processing speed improves when I'm reading the sentence as "In the Eighteenth Dynasty we were able to contact a pharaoh" instead of "In the Eighteenth Dynasty, as it is known in your records of space/time distortions, we were able to contact a pharaoh, as you would call him." Your brain is already going to filter out that stuff anyways. Using strike-through just filters it out for you up front (but still leaves the text there in case you want to examine the quote 'under a magnifying glass').

[APeacefulWarrior]

I think the issue here is that many of those strike-through sections are ones that reveal hints of Ra's own personality and perspective on the universe. Like him saying "our incarnate, as you call it, state" directly suggests he doesn't see things in terms of incarnation. Or I would argue it's actually pretty critical that he clarify that power is a distortion, otherwise it makes it sound like power is some sort of inherent property.

Ra isn't speaking objective truth, just his own highly-informed personal perspective of how the cosmos works. While I agree some of those digressions (like the bit about Egypt) are kinda fluffy, chopping them out risks introducing serious new distortions or inadvertantly ascribing to Ra beliefs he didn't actually share. If anything, I might argue those "as you call it" disclaimers are meant to emphasize how transient and meaningless word-names ultimately are.

[Parsons]

I don't think you are actually reading what I used strike-through on. Here is that quote again: "We are aware that you find our incarnate, as you call it, state of interest." Is there any difference in meaning if it's read as "We are aware that you find our incarnate state of interest?

---

I just feel like everyone (so far) just thought "removing parts of the Ra Material = bad!" and didn't really give what I am saying a chance. Try to keep an open mind, maaannn =OP

[Parsons]

How about I rephrase the question. Does anyone have a problem with a version of the material existing that has some of the extraneous info in strike-through (considering nothing is left out or even re-ordered)?

[anagogy]

If you find it provides clarity, I say go for it. Everyone finds different characteristics clarifying.

[APeacefulWarrior]

I don't think you are actually reading what I used strike-through on. Here is that quote again: "We are aware that you find our incarnate, as you call it, state of interest." Is there any difference in meaning if it's read as "We are aware that you find our incarnate state of interest?

I specifically mentioned that line in my reply. Ra's disclaimer makes it clear that he doesn't think of things in terms of incarnation, but he recognizes that we do. That DOES change the meaning. There really isn't such a thing as "incarnation," just constantly-shifting states of being, and it's only from a veiled 3rd-Density perspective that the word\concept really has much importance.

Is this an ancillary point? Sure. But it seems a bit cavalier to gloss over it for the sake of simplification, since Ra was presumably trying to provide clues for interested readers\listeners to what the higher-density perspective looks like.

How about I rephrase the question. Does anyone have a problem with a version of the material existing that has some of the extraneous info in strike-through (considering nothing is left out or even re-ordered)?

I doubt anyone is going to throw a serious hissy fit, if that's what you mean. But as we've already seen, there's undoubtedly going to be a lot of disagreement over which bits are truly unnecessary. You'll probably be looking at a lot of threads like this one, arguing over your changes, if you continue with the project.

But I'm not going to tell you not to do it, if you're OK with that.

[Aion]

Yeah, have at'er. I find those little bits are good reminders that Ra perceives from a state that does not require much of the articulation we exhaust ourselves with, but anybody can format it for their digestion however they please.

[Aion]

Maybe a better question, why should our opinions matter? If it feels appropriate and follows your intuition then go for it. Some people may find it beneficial.

[isis]

I would like this. I haven't read the material front-to-back yet & if strike-thru version existed I'd choose to read that version.

The strike-thru would basically just serve me as a where-to-definitely-skim indicator. I'm sure my brain would automatically skim such parts even w/o the strike-thru, though, but probably not all of them & certainly not as easily/quickly.

I'd prefer strike-thru over spoiler text thingy.

[Ankh]

I absolutely *love* how Ra speak, buuuut....

When I read the material, I try to carefully consider everything in a given line of questioning. Sometimes that includes complex / difficult to understand concepts that may have multiple follow up questions from Don. So I try to mash quite a bit into my short term memory and digest it is a whole. My mental processing speed improves when I'm reading the sentence as "In the Eighteenth Dynasty we were able to contact a pharaoh" instead of "In the Eighteenth Dynasty, as it is known in your records of space/time distortions, we were able to contact a pharaoh, as you would call him." Your brain is already going to filter out that stuff anyways. Using strike-through just filters it out for you up front (but still leaves the text there in case you want to examine the quote 'under a magnifying glass').

This was a pretty darn good explanation! If it's helpful for you, it might be helpful for others - to understand Ra material better, so I say - GO FOR IT! It could be a very good service to someone! (My daughter for instance has ADHD, which among other things means that she has a very short attention span, so if you talk too much, using too many words, you will loose her interest pretty quickly sometimes. And I guess that there are many people out there having same difficulties, but who might be interested in the core message that Ra gave.)

I know that you didn't ask for an advice, but I will give one anyway. Just know that it is just an opinion, and you can do whatever you want with that - if I would be you and do this project, I wouldn't use an opaque black box over a section of text until you hover your mouse cursor over it to reveal it, or spoiler (as you would call it ), because it might still be distracting to the reader. Better in that case to refer readers to the original text.

But really, Ra CONSTANTLY says stuff like "Bob sat in the chair, as the peoples of your culture vocalize it". I get they are a complex of extra-dimensional entities that most likely don't even use vocal language; so it makes sense they constantly make those clarifications. But we all know what a chair is. And really, what percentage of the people reading the material need an explanation of what a pharaoh is or that Egypt is the name of a location on this planet?

"Device on your planet which your peoples craft from second density living entities, known to you as trees, which your people use for rest of the bodily complex by sitting on it with that area of the body complex vibratory sound complex butt. " LOL!

[Parsons]

I specifically mentioned that line in my reply.  Ra's disclaimer makes it clear that he doesn't think of things in terms of incarnation, but he recognizes that we do.  That DOES change the meaning.  There really isn't such a thing as "incarnation," just constantly-shifting states of being, and it's only from a veiled 3rd-Density perspective that the word\concept really has much importance.

Is this an ancillary point?  Sure.  But it seems a bit cavalier to gloss over it for the sake of simplification, since Ra was presumably trying to provide clues for interested readers\listeners to what the higher-density perspective looks like.

Ah, see your point now. I guess I'm so deeply familiar with the true state of how incarnation works, I overlooked how important that could potentially be to someone who only believes the oversimplified concept of linear "reincarnation".

I suppose I didn't want to bring it up before because I don't want anyone to feel that I have a more 'advanced' understanding of this material since many associate advanced with 'better than' or 'holier than thou'. I didn't want to make myself out to be some all-knowing expert of the material. I feel I have a very firm, mostly undistributed grasp, but I can think or 4 or 5 people here who I feel have a better understanding. I just feel like I'm at the point I don't need the little clarifications Ra makes because I am intimately familiar with most (if not all) of them and thus don't need the reminder. I mostly find them to be distracting; thus the intent of doing something like this.

I guess the intended audience for my proposed "strike-throughed" version of the LOO would be more 'advanced' or 'intermediate' seekers of the Ra Material (for lack of a better term) that don't need that extra language, yet don't understand every single last bit of the material 'without significant distortion'. Of course, anyone of any familiarity level would be welcome to read it.

[Parsons]

Maybe a better question, why should our opinions matter? If it feels appropriate and follows your intuition then go for it. Some people may find it beneficial.

I suppose I wanted someone's blessing because I sense a very deep-seeded repulsion to modifying the material in any way, even as mild as this. I think it's programmed in the the forum egregore.

---

Now that I've decided to at least do a session or two, the question is where to put it... I don't want to put the whole thing in the same thread because that would be absurdly long and would get messed up because people might reply in between sessions. For now, I think I will post my "strike-throughed' version under the The Ra Contact Sessions: 1 - 106 section. I may not get started on this project until Sunday as I'm doing family stuff this weekend... Depending on how it goes, it may take me awhile. I have been painstakingly careful so far because I don't want to strike through something that is very important.

[Aion]

You have my blessings, giv'er. I have been thinking about doing more or less the same thing but with the Bible.

[Parsons]

@Ankh, I had considered making a truly edited version where I simply removed sections instead of strike-throughing them... But I don't feel comfortable doing that at this point. I'll leave that up to someone else or do it at a later date... It's just a very slippery slope to do something like that. Imagine what could happen in say 200 years if that was the version that started circulating instead of the original. Then someone along the way decided to make their additions to 'clarify' the material further.

Sure, we are around to safeguard the material now; but when we are gone, this could happen again:

This entity, Akhenaten, became convinced that the vibration of One was the true spiritual vibration and thus decreed the Law of One.

However, this entity’s beliefs were accepted by very few. His priests gave lip service only, without the spiritual distortion towards seeking. The peoples continued in their beliefs. When this entity was no longer in this density, again the polarized beliefs in the many gods came into their own[...]

[Aion]

Thanks, your quote filled in a puzzle piece of a thought totally unrelated to this thread but which has been vexing me.

I am tracing the chain of focus which seems to be a function of will. Ra discusses focusing the attention as the sole way to strengthen the will. Attention, I realized from your post, is best described by that 'seeking'. That is an interesting word. Seeking is what focuses the attention and thus seeking 'in the same direction' or upon the same concepts/potentials yields a strengthening of the will as you essentially 'mine' the infinity of that particular theme.

Anyways... Back to the topic...

[Adonai One]

The elaborate language allows me to feel my own soul in the material. It's the only reason I read it anymore.

The only thing you need from The Law of One is the title.

[The_Tired_Philosopher]

Why is the Ra Channeling considered so pure it can't be editted for others ease of reading?
But when you want to change it for help, its wrong??

I find many aspects of the Material to be completely misunderstood by some and totally abused and distorted for ego by others.  If not...literally 5-15% of it in word 'choice' and word/intent 'misalignment' so well placed by our darker friends (imo) its not proper to call this Material 'pure' beyond relatively to other channelings.

My first example for misunderstanding or misalignment.  A STO entity using a judgmental word like 'impairment' to describe a sensitive aspect of sexuality, in my opinion, the context is misunderstood as impairment of sexual function when it looks closer to impairment of sexual reproduction evolutionarily.  Is either perspective wrong though?

I'm.always hunting this Material for these hidden things in plain sight subliminally knocking against us.  The dark attacks from the shadow, you won't see it until you're aware of it.  Kind of like actual real subliminal messages in advertisements and tv/radio.  It exists in the Ra Material distinctly, all the extra ramblings some call it, is psychological aids and clues in.a sense.

The removal of some of that might help some cut to the Heart of this Material.  Who's place is it to judge that wrong to do?  Its weird the double standards existent even in this community, its a lovely reminder of why I have faith in Humanity (or the better sides of it anyway).  Humans are beautiful -shrug-

I.dislike the idea of opaque black boxes, as they always looked like those blacked out censored goverment documents, strikeout, and I'm with Isis here, would be preferred.

I've strikedout much of the LOO until I realized everyone needs to strikeout different parts but many seem to agree on.different variants of strikedout text, you could say there is a version of this Material for everyone.

Since as it is messes people up, maybe removal/addition of distortions will be of more help/harm.  I use those terms because everything we do goes both ways no matter what, even for Ra with this Material, it went both ways.  Helped and Harmed, was any of it wrong?

I give my Thoughts and Sincere Hopes you pursue this Parson.  I have found the Material infinitely differing and helpful from doing such with it.

Its a tool, not a Holy Item, you can mess with it and learn Something new.

(Pre-edit: To clarify regards double standards. Not so much referring to anyone here but the attitude in general that I've seen here regards editing the Ra Material)

[Jade]

I definitely see what you are trying to do, Parsons, and if it has value for you, I'm sure it will have value for others.

Maybe it is the egregore, but I tend to think that Ra probably economized their words very specifically. The session you quoted, session 2, is still an introductory session. Ra is setting up their point of view and vantage for the reader. Also, the question is quite transient, which Don hasn't learned to try to redirect from yet, so I think the words also indicate Ra's discomfort/unfamiliarity with talking about such concepts.

I do totally get it, I mean upon subsequent read throughs I've rolled my eyes enough times at some of Don's sillier questions, but upon my first read through, really, not a word seemed superfluous. All of it felt intentional. Even now, I wouldn't prefer to read a version without all the sillier transient questions - because even then, Ra used their allotted time to offer as much information as possible while staying within the confines of the question asked. I just feel the material as a whole is too "magical" in its entirety to start chopping away at words or questions, but that's just me. I don't mind the redundancy, but I can definitely understand if people do.

[rva_jeremy]

How about I rephrase the question. Does anyone have a problem with a version of the material existing that has some of the extraneous info in strike-through (considering nothing is left out or even re-ordered)?

That's a good way to phrase it, Parsons.  I think there's a fundamental concern -- "problem" may not be the appropriate word -- with editing Ra in a way that obscures the editor.

If I restate in my own words a passage in the material, I have made it utterly transparent who is saying what: it is a restatement of material as I understand it and as I choose to express it.  The concepts are from Ra, but they are filtered through me.  It's clear that there is at least more than one level of interpretation here.

If I quote Ra verbatim, I'm making it clear that these are the literal words of the source, and any ambiguity is eligible for a first-order interpretation by the person reading/hearing it.  You don't have to decouple my meaning from those of Ra's (although you could say that merely by excerpting I have introduced my own spin on the material, but let's set that aside).

What you're suggesting, Parsons, is a middle ground, where we simply trim Ra's diction rather than restating from scratch in our own words, but we don't make it abundantly clear who is doing the trimming and why.  It's not necessarily bad or dangerous, but I'm not sure it's very useful, and it can't help but distort -- and in a way that leaves it ambiguous in what way it's distorted and why.

I've actually come around to Ra's style of speaking for one reason: it prevents me from reading fast.  The circumlocution, ornamentation, and denseness of the diction actually forces me to read carefully, and I think I get a lot more out of slowly pouring over passages than simply getting the information into my head as quickly as possible.  In my opinion, it's great that these concepts need to be carefully internalized and can't simply be slurped up by some casual reading like some New Age self-help shlock

I think what we need is a good session-by-session study guide.  The original Law of One study guide sort of tackled the material by topic.  A session-by-session one that could help connect dots and provide commentary and a variety of perspectives on particular passages might also be useful.  Something like Rap Genius but for the sessions.

The way I really felt more engaged in this material was by talking about it with people, because then you have to restate points Ra makes and thereby digest the concepts.  So it would be cool to get a diversity of commentary on passages, give people different perspectives, and -- most of all -- inspire them to think more deeply and explore within for the insights that those of Ra describe.  Because reading the material is only useful to the extent it prompts you to engage in the real study, which is not of these words but of self/creator/creation.

[Plenum]

6 posts were split into a new thread:

[split] "The dark attacks from the shadow ..."

[Parsons]

@Jeremy, You've actually articulated a concept I was expressing differently.

I guess everyone has their own reading/learning style. Where you might read a 'streamlined' quote too quickly and lose the meaning; I would read the same quote and come to the same meaning as I would anyways, only quicker. 

My reading/learning style of something this complex entails me reading 1 or 2 lines many times in a row until I focus on the meaning. I have this (sometimes annoying) ability to read text, but get absolutely no meaning from it. In fact, I could be reading aloud something flawlessly while having an entirety different train of thought. Sometimes I will read up to 5 pages in a book and realize I hadn't been paying attention to a word of it because I am contemplating a tangent.

It happens especially a lot with the Ra Material because my mind will often go into the same tangent that Ra went on. I will lose the thrust of what Ra was getting at and have to double back to the beginning of the response. If I ignore that snipet of text that sent me on the tangent, I can understand a concept much more quickly because my mind wanders off less.

[The_Tired_Philosopher]

Ironically Jade that Magical aspect is exactly what made it so comfortable chopping apart (more like puzzle-piecing apart/together) this Material.  I've learned a lot from it, I might not relay Love in a manner that is High Intensity, but the Love I've found to offer from myself is Honesty more so than Compassion.

I truly believe the Ra Material even in its full form is capable of both good and bad.  I've gone through the Magical Circumstance and through my own personal Hell just from how this Material opened me up.  And I'm...After the Fact extremely grateful.

Truly the one thing you should keep in the front of your mind at all times if you ever mess with the Ra Material, is what the Confederation asks, drop whatever does not resonate.  As far as Distortions go, I honestly do not think you can distort something much further when it starts making people think their own imagination is a negative entity trying to kill them all because they read about an actual entity trying to kill some people in a group.  This Material should be welcome to be edited and viewed through various lenses, in comparison to its Original State, being multifaceted and all, it is more than possible to 'trim' via marking out rather than removing some portions that make the text easier to read and reread.

That everyone seems worried about causing further Distortion, reminds me of an argument for messing with a Bible's passages because it's messing with the Word o' God.  Why are we scared to mess with this?  Because it came from a 6D entity who is much more highly informed?  Who considers us free and respects anything we choose to do?  I would LOVE to see how others read the Law of One, what others see where I didn't.  To view the text in its contextual focus through another, to garnish another's understanding and views and distortions to further know and understand my own.  I actually made a mention of this when I gave my big ranty suggestion before the forum restructure, Personal Interpretations of the Ra Material Forum.  It's great when someone says something that doesn't match how I viewed the material, it is literally a direct way of showing someone a different perspective, and it throws everything back into the air where we must decide if our version or their version is the version for You/I.

I would also love even more an actual Session by Session Study Guide.   That is...A really good idea and I'd actually volunteer to help make one of those ! :exclamation: !

[Ankh]

You have my blessing too, Parsons!

[AnthroHeart]

Even when short phrases are striked through, I still glance at them and comprehend them. I don't gloss over it unless it's a large amount of text.

[Parsons]

I want to be open on my reasoning why I am using strike through on certain words / phrases. I noticed Ra uses therefor a lot in the middle of sentences which can interrupt the natural flow of the sentence. Therefor , I am going to use strike-through on that where appropriate.

[third-density-being]

Dear Parsons,

With all due respect, but what You’ve done in #1 comment/post is – for me personally – utterly unacceptable. Those parts of sentences that You “stroked out” carries important information about Ra’s Qualities, limitations, His/Her/It/Their nature, approach to certain “things” within this/Our density and many others. Doing that to the content of this communication is not “making it easier to understand” but it impoverish the understanding One might actually draw from this. I am truly surprised that You would propose such thing.

Never, under any circumstances, such alterations – or any other for that matter – should be made to this Material, which tries to describe things that are in fact beyond Our comprehension, and presents them in symbolic, indirect fashion. That is exactly why all “stroked out” parts are of utmost value in comprehending this Information – in attempts to understand it deeper and more fully. Each read of The Law of One gives each Reader more insights, new are more refined understanding. To taint Ra Materials with such alterations in the name of “making it easier to understand” is in my opinion a mockery.

All I have Best in me for You

[isis]

BURN THE STROKED OUT VERSION!