Questions regarding the LOO, STS and Religions

[Ali Quadir]

No, Maitreya is more like the returning Christ consciousness. He's like a prophesied Buddha. He got seriously over inflated in various occult groups as the next big teacher.

I don't know that much about him. I know there are large groups of new agers who eagerly await his arrival. I know there are complete galactic communiques supposedly from him. The Buddhists I met and know however never mentioned him. I suppose he's not part of their tradition. There are many forms of Buddhism. But I get the impression he's kind of a borrowed figure.

The problem is that the figures who borrowed him are not Buddhists themselves but western occultists who are big names but a bit edgy...

I think originally he was the Buddha nature, not a person but a frame of mind, that would bring enlightenment to the world. But he became some teacher who even according to some is supposedly every teacher from history, from Jesus to Mohammed to the Gautama Buddha.

[unity100]

This doesn't agree with reality at all. Buddhist religious structure is a highly organized hierarchy. There are absolute leaders. For example the Karmapa, and the Dalai Lama. All wonderful people, very wise and loving. But make no mistake they are very much in charge.

I love Buddhism. I think it's one of the best preserved systems of knowledge concerning the divine there is. Why do you think that is? Because there are no rules?

you are classifying it wrongly.

buddhist organization is a highly organized hierarchy. but, buddhist organizations do not mandate or demand from their believers anything. they dont force you to be buddhist, they dont prevent you from quitting it, they dont even force any other rules to you.

buddhist monk organization is like an adept training organization. one may remember the school of life and school of death in egypt, which taught respectively in matters regarding life (medicine, engineering etc) and ethereal (philosophy, afterlife etc). ie, something similar to what adepts and priests were probably teaching immediately after Ra have done their egypt effort. they teach a certain refined method of their own devising. they dont claim the only path forward, they dont forbid anything else, they dont prevent you from leaving or joining, they dont even ask of you anything from you in your daily actions. its spiritual, and for inner world.

Not only are there gods and demons in Buddhism. There also exist various saints. And the prophets are essentially the holy men that still lead Buddhism today.

If we talk about authority, the Karmapa is the reincarnation of the buddha, and you're the reincarnation of John Smith from bloody Croydon... Does that feel like an equal power base?

first of all, existence of 'gods', is something plural, and, as far as i can see, a positive situation in nature. it means, different aspects and understandings of existence is recognized and respected.

secondly, it is much less efficient as a control tool. if, a negative entity comes up claiming to be prophet of a god, there are many other gods other than that one. with different approaches, tones, attitudes.

so in that, when compared to saying 'there is one god and i am his prophet, obey what i say', plural religions are less effective.

third, in any philosophy or social group, there can be entities who attempt to start negative social constructs. what matters is the suitability of the base philosophy for that kind of act.

take buddhism. it is about enlightenment, internal world, spirit. not anything material. it doesnt even tell you to share your bread with your neighbor. its almost totally about ethereal. so, what can you do as a negative controlling entity ? say 'in order to enlighten yourself, give me riches' ? the philosophy is totally irrelevant to what is being asked in that case even. so, it makes it much harder to fire up a negative social construct.

The four noble truths and the eightfold paths are NOT optional. It's true that in the west no one will hold you to it, but make no mistake, the suffering caused in the west by overzealous Christians is comparable to the suffering Buddhist warriors have caused in the past..

Religion is a reality that encompasses billions of people and many centuries. It does not fit in broad sweeping statements. You're trying to define one part of human nature as part of one religion and another part of human nature as part of another religion..

This is obviously nonsensical, people are all the same. There will be loving Muslims and violent Buddhists. Even though ALL their religions teach peace. Buddhist monks are on average without a doubt the best fighters among all of the monks.. Ever wondered why that is? Ever wondered why there are committees against child sexual abuse in Buddhist monasteries?

We don't like to think of Buddhists this way. But the truth is they're as human as the rest of us. A friend of mine has identified a principle... "The scumbag factor is a constant"... Meaning that no matter what selection of people you take, after a while a certain constant percentage will become scumbags...

Remember the point I made earlier, that religion is always better on the other side of the earth? I think you demonstrated that Unity.

again, if you compare to past, one would come up say that circa 15,000 bc, entities were clubbing each other in the head and stealing each others' belongings. and this was normal.

you are ignoring circumstances. the acceptable behavior pattern level of society circa 4000 BC, or circa 1560 AD, are much different from what they are now, and everything needs to compare accordingly.

circa 15,000 BC, amongst the mainly 2 d population of earth, with their frequency and understanding level, buddhism wouldnt have any place.

circa 1560 AD, buddhist monks from warrior monasteries would have killed people around them for this or that.

circa 2010 bc, however, is where we are at, and we need to think about current cirsumstances and current situations.

yes, there are loving entities everywhere. they can be found everywhere. but this doesnt alleviate the effect of negative religious constructs.

there were germans who were trying to smuggle people out of germany. there are even rumors of wehrmacht (regular german military), killing ss in the field when they cant be discovered, due to what ss were doing at the hands of nazis.

but, that doesnt change the fact that germans in majority supported nazis into power and beyond, and german army has been a tool at the hand of nazis for oppression and occupation.

muslim religion doesnt teach peace by the way. the only peace that can happen, is when all the world becomes muslim, by conquest or conversion, and any non muslim gets subdued and pays tribute. and this is written in stone in koran, so it is almost impossible to reform, as the egyptian reformers have found out in person.

[Ali Quadir]

you are classifying it wrongly.

Or you

buddhist organization is a highly organized hierarchy. but, buddhist organizations do not mandate or demand from their believers anything. they dont force you to be buddhist, they dont prevent you from quitting it, they dont even force any other rules to you.

Neither does the vatican offcourse, they just have a lot to say about it. Incidentally just like some of the buddhist organizations. The stupid thing in both circumstances are that people listen to both the right things and the wrong things these people say.

buddhist monk organization is like an adept training organization. one may remember the school of life and school of death in egypt, which taught respectively in matters regarding life (medicine, engineering etc) and ethereal (philosophy, afterlife etc). ie, something similar to what adepts and priests were probably teaching immediately after Ra have done their egypt effort. they teach a certain refined method of their own devising. they dont claim the only path forward, they dont forbid anything else, they dont prevent you from leaving or joining, they dont even ask of you anything from you in your daily actions. its spiritual, and for inner world.

And they do great work.. Yet they had their versions of control.

The Sakya school ruled tibet before the chinese invaded. Without making any apologies for the chinese, they should give the people of tibet freedom. But the Sakya school was not an enlightened doctrine at that time. They gouched out eyes and cut of hands as judicial punishment until the beginning of the 20th century. Around the time the chinese showed up they still flogged people on a regular basis. In the US they had only stopped doing it to prisoners for a few decades by then. Poverty was so severe that everyone was essentially a slave.

The chinese have blown this up and use this to their advantage. But it is not made up. Most lies are exaggerations of truth.

You only know the good side of Buddhist history. You essentially tell me rational reasons why it shouldn't be like this. And I would love to agree. But rationality and reality often diverge. If it looks simple you're probably deceiving yourself at least that's what I always tell myself.

It's all people. Seeing one group as more enlightened than others is part of the 3d illusion. We have to learn to see beyond it to see humanity stripped of it's archetypes, as she is.

muslim religion doesnt teach peace by the way. the only peace that can happen, is when all the world becomes muslim, by conquest or conversion, any non muslim gets subdued and pays tribute. and this is written in stone in koran, so it is almost impossible to reform, as the egyptian reformers have found out in person.

There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

Also
http://www.myfaithmyvoice.com/


I want to remind you that this is not this religion versus that religion. This is me filling you in in some of the dark spots of your awareness of Buddhist history simply because you chose them as an example of perfection.

I don't want to give Buddhists a bad name. They don't deserve it. In spite of their troubles they are in great shape today. I'm simply adding context to reveal a bigger much more complicated picture.

Some of the best people I know are Buddhists, and I have studied it as part of my own evolution. There was a time I felt Buddhism could be for me. I have had that experience with many religions. Until I discovered I just had to study them all. Buddhism is a treasure trove of positive teachings and great wisdom. Today it is one of the most accessible and open religions of the world. The work these folks are doing for global consciousness is amazing.

But we should realize that everyone is human. And in the end that's the weak spot, we are not perfect when we compare ourselves to true love great wisdom and compassion..

[Shemaya]

To add to the positive view of religions, think about the countless COUNTLESS religious organizations and faith based ministries that feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, visit and minister to prisoners, provide all kinds of help and support to people in need.

They provide a community and structure to do acts of service, and it is invaluable, and it opens peoples hearts on a daily and minute by minute basis.

It's all people. Seeing one group as more enlightened than others is part of the 3d illusion. We have to learn to see beyond it to see humanity stripped of it's archetypes, as she is.

Great point Ali Quadir! And this is one of the thought forms that depolarizes us...the thought that we are more advanced or more enlightened .....or "chosen" by God as "His" people. This is a thought form that causes the illusion of division and separation, and blinds us from seeing and feeling the truth of our unity and oneness and equality. We may be different...but we are equal. We are all the Creator.

It's a thought that feeds our ego, makes us feel special and better than others. Superior to others.

My experience has been that whenever I feel that I am better than others, or smarter or wiser, or more beautiful, or more advanced, or more loving or more pure or more anything....it is depolarizing. It keeps me stuck in the yellow ray, my ego, and blocks me from opening my heart.

[unity100]

Neither does the vatican offcourse, they just have a lot to say about it. Incidentally just like some of the buddhist organizations. The stupid thing in both circumstances are that people listen to both the right things and the wrong things these people say.

incorrect. caanan religions have always been how to live your life in its minuate, from wedding to how to punish thieves, whereas eastern philosophies have exclusively been about the entities' inner worlds.

vatican, never said or hinted that they dont demand anything from their flock. it is to the contrary, they regularly ask certain things be done in certain ways, ranging from adoption to science.

And they do great work.. Yet they had their versions of control.

The Sakya school ruled tibet before the chinese invaded. Without making any apologies for the chinese, they should give the people of tibet freedom. But the Sakya school was not an enlightened doctrine at that time. They gouched out eyes and cut of hands as judicial punishment until the beginning of the 20th century. Around the time the chinese showed up they still flogged people on a regular basis. In the US they had only stopped doing it to prisoners for a few decades by then. Poverty was so severe that everyone was essentially a slave.

The chinese have blown this up and use this to their advantage. But it is not made up. Most lies are exaggerations of truth.

You only know the good side of Buddhist history. You essentially tell me rational reasons why it shouldn't be like this. And I would love to agree. But rationality and reality often diverge. If it looks simple you're probably deceiving yourself at least that's what I always tell myself.

no, i am not. since history is my hobby, i have information about the southeastern asia history as well and know how vile and bloody it is.

yet, i am able to evaluate the philosophies based on their own mechanics, than the history of the regions that have practiced them.

It's all people. Seeing one group as more enlightened than others is part of the 3d illusion. We have to learn to see beyond it to see humanity stripped of it's archetypes, as she is.

this is not about groups. this is about teachings/procedures and their natures. if something has been planned and created to be negative in nature, it will retain its negative nature, regardless of the times. groups interpreting it more aggressively or passively will not change the nature of the teaching/procedure.

I want to remind you that this is not this religion versus that religion. This is me filling you in in some of the dark spots of your awareness of Buddhist history simply because you chose them as an example of perfection.

I don't want to give Buddhists a bad name. They don't deserve it. In spite of their troubles they are in great shape today. I'm simply adding context to reveal a bigger much more complicated picture.

Some of the best people I know are Buddhists, and I have studied it as part of my own evolution. There was a time I felt Buddhism could be for me. I have had that experience with many religions. Until I discovered I just had to study them all. Buddhism is a treasure trove of positive teachings and great wisdom. Today it is one of the most accessible and open religions of the world. The work these folks are doing for global consciousness is amazing.

But we should realize that everyone is human. And in the end that's the weak spot, we are not perfect when we compare ourselves to true love great wisdom and compassion..

you are the one who is thinking and commenting on groups. i am not, and have not done it at any point in this discussion.

i am commenting on the religions. and i am saying, whatever is the nature of that particular belief/dogma system, it is going to have the effect it is going to have on the people that are following it. positive or negative.

the culture or history of a certain region being in a certain way, does not change the nature of the religion that acts within.

as a simple example, regardless of what happened in east central european steppes, the culture of those regions have always been a repressive and brutal one, going way back to 2000 BC. the tribes originating from there were brutal and repressive, while raiding and settling in anatolia, the region stayed brutal and repressive after christianity came, it stayed brutal and repressive after serfdom, stayed the same during tsardom, stayed the same during communist era, and still the same in the 'democracy' era it is in now. it is a regional trait, and regardless of what happens, it seems to stay that way.

one can easily argue that the history of east asia could be a much more bloody one without buddhism taoism and so on.

but, these, still do not change the nature of the religion/dogma systems.

in particular, islam's traits are built into its holy book, koran, in an unobjectionable and unquestionable manner, and cannot be changed. this is a theological matter, and it wont change with interpretation. actually, koran doesnt even allow interpretation.

---

To add to the positive view of religions, think about the countless COUNTLESS religious organizations and faith based ministries that feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, visit and minister to prisoners, provide all kinds of help and support to people in need.

They provide a community and structure to do acts of service, and it is invaluable, and it opens peoples hearts on a daily and minute by minute basis.

it has a hidden benefit. the community/church/whatever doing the charity strengthens its impression in the public, also influences those who it helps, even if it does not intend to do so. also, strengthens the solidarity within its own flock and justifies its existence to its flock.

[Shemaya]

it has a hidden benefit. the community/church/whatever doing the charity strengthens its impression in the public, also influences those who it helps, even if it does not intend to do so. also, strengthens the solidarity within its own flock and justifies its existence to its flock.

Sounds about right, but are you implying that its existence is not justified?

To that I will say, "I am serving just by existing"

[unity100]

it is muddied. since it has been as such for thousands of years, the societal mind knows that info about how engaging in such charities as an organized group which perpetuates a certain philosophy/religion/dogma/belief is going to affect the public and people favorably regarding themselves. its an innate situation.

compare that to charities run by secular organizations whose sole purpose is the charity for example. everything is about the charity being done. no hidden message or no underlying philosophy is carried. the situation is much more pure.

[Ali Quadir]

no, i am not. since history is my hobby, i have information about the southeastern asia history as well and know how vile and bloody it is.

Yet interestingly enough you decided to withhold that historic context? If history is your hobby then you should know that history makes the difference between good and bad religions... Not the rationale you've been displaying so far.

yet, i am able to evaluate the philosophies based on their own mechanics, than the history of the regions that have practiced them.

You're clearly measuring with double standards. Religious organisations that dictate how people should live yet do good things in the east... Wonderful religions. Religious organisations that dictate how people should live yet do good things in the west... Terrible religions.

This has devolved into a yes/no argument, you never give examples from the real world. You essentially only tell me to believe your indiscriminate and prejudiced positions. I didn't get here by believing peoples positions without asking for evidence. When new information enters the topic I will participate again.

[Shemaya]

compare that to charities run by secular organizations whose sole purpose is the charity for example. everything is about the charity being done. no hidden message or no underlying philosophy is carried. the situation is much more pure.

I would disagree.

[unity100]

You're clearly measuring with double standards. Religious organisations that dictate how people should live yet do good things in the east... Wonderful religions. Religious organisations that dictate how people should live yet do good things in the west... Terrible religions.

i am not employing anything with double standards. i have given guidelines as to the standards i am employing, some of which are derived from Ra material, like the bit about 'a positive source would not say "you shall not"', and the information we are given about negative control mechanisms, hierarchies and the nature of life in negative planets, negative path.

This has devolved into a yes/no argument, you never give examples from the real world. You essentially only tell me to believe your indiscriminate and prejudiced positions. I didn't get here by believing peoples positions without asking for evidence. When new information enters the topic I will participate again.

it hasnt devolved into anything. you have not just asked for the 'evidence' to be given. when i have talked about the general nature and tones of islam, you have first accused me by giving 'impressions'. i have replied that i have studied this religion, leave aside being a member of it once, and i could give pointers as to its nature from within its holy book, and life, proceedings and examples of its prophet. i have told that those wouldnt be so pleasant to hear for you, you or others could feel 'offended' despite what i was going to quote would be the direct orders of this particular god of islam, and i have been refraining from that.

in return you havent asked me to provide these. now, you are talking about 'evidence'. if you want to hear it, just ask it.

[peelstreetguy]

Ahhh.....more arguments about religion. If we were to count all the arguments, torture and wars caused by religion, we would never stop counting.
I wish the entire world would declare religion obsolete. It clearly is in my brain.

[Monica]

compare that to charities run by secular organizations whose sole purpose is the charity for example. everything is about the charity being done. no hidden message or no underlying philosophy is carried. the situation is much more pure.

Secular organizations are no better or worse than religious organizations. They too have structures which can get corrupt or may have been corrupt to start with. A good example is a very well-known organization for supposedly working for a cure for cancer. In my opinion, this particular organization is completely bogus. They rake in many millions of people's money...people whose lives have been devastated by cancer and now earnestly want to help others...believing that when they make a donation, it really is going into cancer research. But the organization doesn't recognize many, many things that help prevent or heal cancer. They only recognize drugs which earn the drug companies huge profits.

It can work both ways. I think many religious charitable organizations were formed by people in that religion with the genuine intention to help others. On the other hand, I've also witnessed firsthand the 'hidden agenda.' For example, several people working in the pro-life movement explicitly admitted to me that they offered help to pregnant women as a way to convert them to Christianity. One woman even told me that helping the woman and the baby were inconsequential, but saving their soul was what mattered. She openly admitted to me that their image of helping women covered an agenda of converting them to Christianity. The same is true of a lot of missionary work.

Nevertheless, even though the structure itself may have had an agenda other than truly helping others, many people within that structure do have pure intentions. So we're back to the question of whether people working within a structure can transcend that structure. I believe emphatically that they can and do. However I also agree that it's not efficient and an act of charity done for the sake of charity alone is the goal. But maybe most people wouldn't think of being charitable, if their religion didn't encourage them to be. I don't know. It's all very convoluted, methinks.

I had a co-worker who had been Catholic but then he and his wife decided to become atheists. He told me one of the reasons was that they wanted to do charity for the sake of charity, rather than because they were required to by their religion. He also said they felt being atheists would make them better people!

Conversely, there is no doubt in my mind that many people might not have considered being charitable, were it not for their religions telling them to. It can work both ways!

Then again, there may be some truth to the idea that the institutions themselves interfere with charitable actions. A excellent example of this is Mother Theresa. She is considered a hero and even a saint by the Catholic Church. But I have read articles written by other denominations that criticize her because - get this - she focused on helping people without "saving their souls"!!

I think this discussion is really about the difference between institutions and the people in those institutions. I still see a lot of disagreement based on that. It's easy to get defensive of the institutions because we see the good being done by the people in those institutions. There is no doubt in my mind that many, if not most, of the people working in the aforementioned cancer organization have genuine intentions! But they aren't the ones calling the shots. The leaders of the organization are.

It's the same whether the institution is religious or secular. Any institution can become corrupt, even if the original founder had pure intentions. Conversely, the people working within an institution can still do great good, and even change it from the inside out, eventually. Key word here being eventually.

I don't think there are any absolutes. All of our viewpoints are valid and just pieces of the whole.

---

this is not about groups. this is about teachings/procedures and their natures. if something has been planned and created to be negative in nature, it will retain its negative nature, regardless of the times. groups interpreting it more aggressively or passively will not change the nature of the teaching/procedure.

Thank you for clarifying that you are referring to the institutions, rather than the people in them. As mentioned above, I do however disagree that structures cannot be changed. I think they can be changed from the inside. But not easily. I don't see that happening anytime soon. (Unless maybe something really extraordinary happens, like aliens landing on the White House lawn, ha. Even then, the leaders of the fundamentalist religions will likely say it's 'satan' trying to trick everyone, in order to preserve their institution!) And probably not until all souls have gotten what they needed from the STS aspects of that institution. These institutions will remain in 3D as long as there are some souls who need/want that catalyst, to provide them an opportunity to choose.

They provide a community and structure to do acts of service, and it is invaluable, and it opens peoples hearts on a daily and minute by minute basis.

it has a hidden benefit. the community/church/whatever doing the charity strengthens its impression in the public, also influences those who it helps, even if it does not intend to do so. also, strengthens the solidarity within its own flock and justifies its existence to its flock.

Both are true. It's a mixed polarity.

[unity100]

Secular organizations are no better or worse than religious organizations. They too have structures which can get corrupt or may have been corrupt to start with. A good example is a very well-known organization for supposedly working for a cure for cancer. In my opinion, this particular organization is completely bogus. They rake in many millions of people's money...people whose lives have been devastated by cancer and now earnestly want to help others...believing that when they make a donation, it really is going into cancer research. But the organization doesn't recognize many, many things that help prevent or heal cancer. They only recognize drugs which earn the drug companies huge profits.

the impact with a secular organization is much much lower. secular organization, if not specifically created to propagate and act as a pr tool of a philosophy or party, are unattached to any kind of philosophy or dogma.

imagine u.n. food aid or medicine aid. imagine from the viewpoint of someone receiving this aid. what is the situation ? there is an 'organization' called u.n.. it renders aid. they dont even know what this organization is, what its philosophy is, what is it based on. some person from some other part of the world gives you the aid. there are no immediate references that you can attach this aid to, no philosophy, no nationality, no religion. it is someone, and some organization.

Thank you for clarifying that you are referring to the institutions, rather than the people in them. As mentioned above, I do however disagree that structures cannot be changed. I think they can be changed from the inside. But not easily. I don't see that happening anytime soon. (Unless maybe something really extraordinary happens, like aliens landing on the White House lawn, ha. Even then, the leaders of the fundamentalist religions will likely say it's 'satan' trying to trick everyone, in order to preserve their institution!) And probably not until all souls have gotten what they needed from the STS aspects of that institution. These institutions will remain in 3D as long as there are some souls who need/want that catalyst, to provide them an opportunity to choose.

institutions inevitably will affect the people that are participating in them. what matters in any situation is, which is more rigid - the institution, or the people.

if, the people are more rigid, they can abuse and change the institution to a certain extent defined by their rigidity. act totally in contradiction with the institution. still, you can change people, with their views, beliefs and so on.

however, if the institution, the dogma, religion is more rigid, it becomes much harder to change anything, because, even if people change, the dogma will remain as it is, unless it is totally refused, or discarded, or declared changed, will not change and force itself upon its participants.

that is the danger and damage of religions on this planet so far.

the 'yet still needing the sts features of a religion' concept can be argued, and it has merit.

yet, the problem is, mind is the conduit in between spirit and the body (therefore physical manifestation), and its conditioning affects everything. you can suppress any kind of inflows from the spirit by conditioning someone's mind enough from youth, or reinforce it. the religions on this planet, has been doing the former.

the only choice becomes spirit totally forcing in and breaking the conditionings of the brain, entity becoming rebellious and refusing. and this is not a merry going and easyriding process. and even after that is accomplished, the entity will be at odds with its societal surroundings.

it is as simple as that : positive philosophy and environments allow different thinking. negative, does not. therefore, negative situations and dogmas and religions and societies, do not just 'let go' entities once their need for sts experience is fulfilled.

[Shemaya]

To all posters in this thread on religion and those reading it,

Happy Peace Day

May we know where peace resides and bring it out into the world through our thoughts words and actions.

Let there be peace!

[Shemaya]

60.18 Questioner: Was this a device for communication then? You also said that they drew power from it. What sort of power? How did this work?

Ra: I am Ra. This was charged by means of the materials with which it was built being given an electromagnetic field. It became an object of power in this way and, to those whose faith became that untarnished by unrighteousness or separation, this power designed for negativity became positive and is so, to those truly in harmony with the experience of service, to this day. Thus the negative forces were partially successful but the positively oriented Moishe, as this entity was called, gave to your planetary peoples the possibility of a path to the One Infinite Creator which is completely positive.

This is in common with each of your orthodox religious systems which have all become somewhat mixed in orientation, yet offer a pure path to the One Creator which is seen by the pure seeker.

[unity100]

it isnt completely common. there is a religion which was apparently planned and created as negative from the start.

that aside, 'possibility of a path to one infinite creator' does not have any relevance to purity, and sticking to impure channels whereas purer channels are available.

moishe was (probably) just one wanderer or positive adept or 3d entity who probably had the support of a certain group from confederation behind him for this effort. same goes for jeshosuah.

since 1960s, over 60 million wanderers have incarnated, and probably countless and vast effort has been made by countless societal complexes, groups, planetary or local sources, or galactic sources, to bring purer information and channels. ra material is one of these, and there are a lot of others you know about.

the only two reasons to not let go of existing religions despite this effort has been made and purer channels are available, and finding justifications and excuses for doing so, would be either existing dormant conditioning in one's mind or stubbornness in 'turning about' something that has gone wrong/awry/failed. or both of them in varying proportions.

of course there are (for some, most important) situations regarding having to fit into society, family, circumstances, fearing consequences of not fitting in or coming at odds with close ones, family, society etc, or, trying to make the new pure channel get accepted and fit in, by trying to meld it with existing religions and so on.

[βαθμιαίος]

in numerous places in Ra text, it is noted that repetition of various predetermined actions do not bring enlightenment or benefit. 'i drink christ's blood' or similar such predetermined traditional moves will not help any entity go forth in their path.

This is not correct. Ra specifically said that Holy Communion was helpful to Carla. "This entity was yearning for this protection both consciously in that it responds to the accoutrements of this expression, the ritual, the colors and their meanings as given by the distortion system of what you call the church, the song of praise, and the combined prayers of thanksgiving and, most of all, that which may be seen to be most centrally magical, the intake of that food which is not of this dimension but has been transmuted into metaphysical nourishment in what this distortion of expression calls the holy communion."

Furthermore, the idea that we need to leave rituals behind conflicts with Ra's statement about their current activities. "Our rituals, as you may call them, are an infinitely subtle continuation of the balancing processes which you are now beginning to experience."

Also, Ra gave a number of different rituals for Carla, Don, and Jim to use: the ritual to start the sessions, the cleansing ritual, the ritual to protect their cats at the vets, etc.

[unity100]

You are missing the importance of intent. if one has intent, and manifests it, it wouldnt differ much whether there was a ritual or not.

however, for endless numbers of entities, who are participating in those rituals of church and temple and this and that we are speaking about, those rituals havent provided noticeable benefits towards enlightenment. it is similar to the remark Ra made regarding about how entities were learning and accepting concepts of Law of One, but, they were easily ignoring them, not manifesting in their actions in their daily life.

[βαθμιαίος]

It does matter if ritual is used. "With the appropriate emotional will, polarity, and purity, work may be done with or without proper sound vibration complexes. However, there is no need for the blunt instrument when the scalpel is available."

[unity100]

"With the appropriate emotional will, polarity, and purity"

are you aware that, the above requirements preceding use of a ritual, will eliminate almost entirety of temple-going entities on this planet from that consideration ?

and, with the above qualifications, if one syncs with universe, life, there wouldnt be any need left to perform any ritual, because life itself would unfold accordingly ?

[βαθμιαίος]

I'm not discussing the majority of temple-going entities. I'm saying that ritual is an appropriate and useful tool for the dedicated seeker.

As Ra says, you can do without ritual, but why use the blunt instrument when the scalpel is available?

[unity100]

yes, it is. however the catch is that, the ritual will carry ALL the charged emotions, energies, karma of the sources, cultures, religions, groups which have been using it. it is a double edged sword.

if you are an adept, yes, a PURE ritual, from pure sources, even one of one's own, would be more effective than brutal will.

however it is my opinion that if an entity is enough in sync with infinite intelligence and its flows in the space/time nexus s/he is living in, life itself would become a ritual.

however, for majority of this planet's population, they are repetitive actions.

---

one important consideration is this, however :

yes, someone, as an adept with enough will and intent, can do stuff, effect energy changes, mind/body changes, etc with rituals. and, ritual is a more effective tool to effect such changes.

but..

because ritual is effective, wont it make the ritual an overboard tool itself, that brings in changes that are not naturally supported by the energy flows, spiritual situation, ie the reality of the nexus the entity is currently in ?

you do the ritual, you bring some efficient energetic or consciousness changes, ritual ends, and then what ? is there the continuous energy flows, consciousness states supporting that situation ? does it continue after you leave the temple (lets say you were in a temple), or does it fade away after a while ? it does.

because the situation, reality, ie, the entire thing we have going on here, does not support it yet.

i tie the difficulties experienced in Ra contact to these. the intent was there, will was there, preparation was long and intensive (many lifetimes apparently), rituals were precise, effective, contact was brought forth.... but with a lot of difficulties, AND from a very narrow band.

why ? simply, the situation in 1980s, the state of the planet spiritually, was not able to support that kind of contact without that much effort.

had the contact been attempted in 1880, it would maybe become impossible to accomplish it. had it been attempted in 2080, it would maybe become a trifle to do.

so, i think any kind of sharper tool is a double edged sword.

............

there are also psychic defense implications of this. when you are using a sharper tool, you are using a sharper tool. however when you arent, you are only by yourself, your mind/body/spirit complex and the natural state of your own self.

it is much more natural and solid to strengthen one's own natural state of being, than to seek sharper, more efficient tools, especially on this chaotic planet.

[Monica]

it is my opinion that if an entity is enough in sync with infinite intelligence and its flows in the space/time nexus s/he is living in, life itself would become a ritual.

Profound!

[unity100]

may be profound, but unfortunately the society we are living in is not so much in sync. i think to offset it, the entity vieing for that would have to spend extra effort of synchronization ...

[Monica]

may be profound, but unfortunately the society we are living in is not so much in sync. i think to offset it, the entity vieing for that would have to spend extra effort of synchronization ...

The idea is profound. To live each moment with the focus, dedication, reverence and wonder of a ritual...

[unity100]

then what will happen when nothing much happens ?

[βαθμιαίος]

No doubt, a powerful ritual is a double-edged sword. As Ra said, "the honor of propinquity to light carries with it the Law of Responsibility." I'm not sure that that means we should avoid it, though.

But it's a decision for each to make for him- or herself, of course.

[unity100]

it probably means everyone is responsible for the outcomes of whatever they do. effects of any ritual is included.

this is why i think going natural, and doing everything that way would be the best.

[βαθμιαίος]

Each of us has to decide what's our best approach, and it's great that you are comfortable with your own decision. For individual work, I tend to agree with you that avoiding ritual and getting ourselves in sync with infinite intelligence is the way to go. However, if we are fortunate enough to have found a balanced and radiant group to work with, group rituals can be quite effective, powerful, and appropriate. After all, the Ra contact wouldn't have lasted long without the protection generated by the opening ritual of walking the circle of light, which means that had Don and Jim not performed that ritual so well and so faithfully, we would not be having this discussion here on this forum.

I think that rituals will and do continue to be important in the group-oriented higher densities of fourth and sixth, but I agree with you that the negative patterns which have built up over the years in our third-density rituals should, and I think, will, fade away.

I expect earth's fourth-density rituals to start from and build on our third-density rituals, but without the negative components.

[Quantum]

it probably means everyone is responsible for the outcomes of whatever they do. effects of any ritual is included.

"Everyone is responsible for the outcomes of whatever they do" is an extremely self evident proposition in life to be sure. That it is also so for ritual is therefore redundant. Ritual therefore is valid, which was the point you argued against.

this is why i think going natural, and doing everything that way would be the best.

Going natural is a choice, and even if valid is no more valid than is Ritual as a whole, this per the Ra quote which you originally proposed was nothing more than empty non-effective repetitions (see below):

in numerous places in Ra text, it is noted that repetition of various predetermined actions do not bring enlightenment or benefit. 'i drink christ's blood' or similar such predetermined traditional moves will not help any entity go forth in their path.

As such, given you have a penchant for natural means, ritual would probably not be as effective for you.