Ra material is not the Law of One

[Monica]

The title of the thread was to point out that the Ra material is not the Law of One, it is a teaching of the Law of One. The Law of One exists despite the ability of Ra to teach it.

I've often stated that one of my friends, who is 100% Bible-believing Christian, understands the Law of One better than most people I know who actually study the Ra Material. He has managed to discover the Law of One in his chosen religion, despite the distortion of his chosen 'holy' book. He is a shining example of how the Law of One isn't any book.

The confusion may arise because the title of the Ra Material in book form is The Law of One. So oftentimes, when we are quoting the Ra Material, we refer to it as The Law of One because that's the title of the books. I've done this myself many times. Although it was clear in my mind and, presumably, clear in most people's minds, I can see now how referring to it that way might have been confusing for some.

Thank you for pointing this out. It might be a good idea for all of us to refer to the books as The Ra Material, in the future, to distinguish it from The Law of One.

---

mmmmmm semantics!!!

I, for one, would like to say that I don't care what anyone chooses to call it; I love you all and I love your choices. In this case, I haven't seen anybody running around preaching the sovereignty of Ra over the Law of One, so I don't quite understand what the problem is that this seems to be addressing...

am I the only one who sees it this way? this seems to be much ado about nothing. Is the community currently mistaking Ra as being the only source of the Law of One?

Ra took great care regarding semantics, to the point that their choice of words ended up being cumbersome for some to read, in their efforts to minimize distortion.

As students of the Law of One, it would behoove us to do likewise when discussing the material, especially when there is potential for confusion, such as the name of the book being the same as the philosophical concept itself. It might not be clear to everyone. Already one person has expressed gratitude at the increased clarity, just in this thread so far.

---

In fact, now that this issue has been raised, I think it would be a healthy community practice for us to attempt to refer to these books as "The Ra Material" rather than the "Law of One". We cannot fully end this identification between the two because the books have been published under the title "The Law of One" (what's done, in that regard, is done), but it seems wise to me to make this distinction more evident not only in our daily vocabulary usage, but also in the information offered in this very website. For example, it is now evident to us that there are a great many miscommunications that arose because this forum is titled "Strictly Law of One" rather than "Strictly Ra Material".

---

Ah, I just said the same thing, before reading your post.

[hogey11]

While I mostly agree with you Monica, I think it is a little more complicated than that. RA took great care in their use of semantics because it was so important that the information they gave would not be construed and misunderstood. Therefore, like you allude, they went a bit overkill.

Ultimately, the use of semantics comes down to intent: RA's intent was to enhance clarity, but semantics can also be used to enhance authority. I guess i'm sensitive to this because a pet peeve of mine is people who insist that other's use the same language as them in their everyday lives. Rather than take the accepted meaning of others words, we feel the need to correct and siphon out the 'mistakes' in the way they are thinking so that they think more like ourselves.

I would argue that to include rather than exclude will always make you fuller. We should worry more about the meaning behind the words rather than correcting the language that ultimately leads in the same direction. That's just me tho... i've always been a little anti-authoritarian

[Shin'Ar]

The message behind the OP was not to criticize LL for the way they choose to express their teaching.

Too many here seem to have chips on their shoulders for some reason and want to find something to argue about in everything.

The OP was simply meant as a kind reminder that the Law of One is, like the law of gravity and the law of thermodynamics, a universal, cosmological Law of nature. No one should see anything else in that message.

[JustLikeYou]

Too many here seem to have chips on their shoulders for some reason and want to find something to argue about in everything.

We have similar lessons, which is part of the reason we were drawn to this forum.

Another reason for this tendency is that for most of us, the Ra Material is the simplest, most coherent expression of the Law of One which we have access to. However, there is much that was left unsaid, many questions left unasked, many answers which bear alternate interpretations.

Yet another perspective: consider a game of chess. The pieces are moved and the game is played out. Some players play aggressively, some players play defensively, some players like to make use of the element of surprise. No matter how the game is played, the pieces will be moved and the minds of the two players will be revealed therein. Yet the actual movement of the pieces does not say anything about whether the two players are friends or enemies. It says nothing about whether they are attached to winning or simply enjoy the game as an adventure to be undertaken with a friend who is only pretending to be a foe. It is true that some here have the appearance of mental rigidity, but this may only be a way of playing the game. When there is a perceived overabundance of Yang, responding with Yin will harmonize the situation. If another is aggressive, allow him inside and let him make his own mistake. In the course of the game, he will see the folly and all will be well.

Chip or no chip, the members here mean well. Those who lack softness and humility will learn this in time.

---

I would argue that to include rather than exclude will always make you fuller. We should worry more about the meaning behind the words rather than correcting the language that ultimately leads in the same direction.

I do not mean to contradict your assertion, hogey. Rather, I mean to offer the flip-side of the coin in order than a balanced perspective on this subject may be viewed.

Inclusion and exclusion is a balance which must be negotiated. Let me give you an example. Let's say you want to have a party. Who do you invite? If you invite your whole city, you are effectively throwing a festival. If you only invite your closest friends, you are having a small get-together. The vibration of these two kinds of events is completely different. If your closest friends are all yogis, a get-together will likely include some asana, meditation and mantra. When I was in college, my closest friends and I liked to play Super Smash Bros (it was convenient that there were 4 of us). But when your party includes the entire city, no longer can you have this intimate interaction in a focused way. Activities must be very general, communication must be much more shallow.

Therefore, in choosing the inclusion/exclusion balance, it is important to consider the focus and depth of your engagement. Here, in "Strictly Law of One", the intention is great focus and depth. Therefore, there will be many who are naturally excluded. They are not excluded because we do not want them here. They are excluded because they choose not to explore with the same level of focus and depth.

I think the main reason that we attempt to maintain fidelity to Ra's chosen terminology is the same as the reason that the neophyte studies his tradition of choice exclusively. Only when the chosen tradition is mastered is it appropriate to synthesize other traditions. If we deviate too soon from Ra's terminology, we run the risk of losing the intended meaning. Until we are certain of the intended meanings and the interconnections between these meanings, it is wise to stick to the teaching as it is taught.

I'll let Ra speak to this point:

76.9

It is well to investigate each discipline, not as a dilettante, but as one who seeks the touchstone, one who wishes to feel the pull of the magnet. One of these studies will be more attractive to the seeker. Let the seeker, then, investigate the archetypical mind using, basically, one of these three disciplines. After a period of study, the discipline mastered sufficiently, the seeker may then complete the more important step: that is, the moving beyond the written in order to express in an unique fashion its understanding, if you may again pardon the noun, of the archetypical mind.

(emphasis mine.)

[hogey11]

Shin'Ar - I hear you loud and clear brother. I think your OP was a little sharper than the way you put it now, as for myself it seemed like you were 'reminding' me in the way my mother used to 'remind' me to clean my room.

I have found the community here to be very accepting of all sources of learning/teaching and so I took exception to the reminder. Love and light.

@JustLikeYou

I find the constant differentiation of the same thing to be tiring. They are only words. They all mean the same thing and lead to the same place. I see everything as able to teach the Law of One; so why do I need to define it so succinctly?

[Shin'Ar]

Hogey,

Go clean your room!

[Bring4th_Austin]

The OP was simply meant as a kind reminder that the Law of One is, like the law of gravity and the law of thermodynamics, a universal, cosmological Law of nature. No one should see anything else in that message.

This forum is rich with projection and catalyst. Many posts which are created with specific intent will be seen many different ways by many different people, in whatever way is best for them to learn and discover themselves. Sometimes we take advantage of these situations, sometimes we don't.

[JustLikeYou]

You don't need to, Hogey. You do as you like.

I only mean to emphasize that the meanings of words cannot be gotten to in a straightforward way upon first hearing the words. The structure of their usage, the myriad connotations, the deep intentions behind selecting a specific word or set of words, these are all things that influence word-choice -- and these are all part of the meaning embedded into the word. If you feel that the words Ra chooses no longer benefit you, then discard them as you would discard a ladder that you ascend and never intend to descend. However, there are many here who feel that the deep meanings of the language Ra used are still yet to be fully unfolded. Therefore, these people choose to continue to study the tradition, seeking further and further blooming of foundational concepts out of surface words.

As an example, I recently used the word "evil" as shorthand for STS. This caused confusion. Therefore, I decided it is best to stick to Ra's terminology because it is not as likely to cause confusion.

But, again, if this practice feels too rigid for you, then perhaps it is too rigid for you. Only you can say what is best for you to do at any given moment. It is also well to likewise keep in mind that this practice is appropriately rigid for others. Because I find mental precision useful in the mission to which I have committed myself, my own efforts are oriented toward a particular level of precision. If this troubles you, then I ask only that you cease to read my words. A quick skim is all that is necessary to tell you when interlocutors are getting more precise than is your interest.

[Ruth]

You don't need to, Hogey. You do as you like.

I only mean to emphasize that the meanings of words cannot be gotten to in a straightforward way upon first hearing the words. The structure of their usage, the myriad connotations, the deep intentions behind selecting a specific word or set of words, these are all things that influence word-choice -- and these are all part of the meaning embedded into the word. If you feel that the words Ra chooses no longer benefit you, then discard them as you would discard a ladder that you ascend and never intend to descend. However, there are many here who feel that the deep meanings of the language Ra used are still yet to be fully unfolded. Therefore, these people choose to continue to study the tradition, seeking further and further blooming of foundational concepts out of surface words.

As an example, I recently used the word "evil" as shorthand for STS. This caused confusion. Therefore, I decided it is best to stick to Ra's terminology because it is not as likely to cause confusion.

But, again, if this practice feels too rigid for you, then perhaps it is too rigid for you. Only you can say what is best for you to do at any given moment. It is also well to likewise keep in mind that this practice is appropriately rigid for others. Because I find mental precision useful in the mission to which I have committed myself, my own efforts are oriented toward a particular level of precision. If this troubles you, then I ask only that you cease to read my words. A quick skim is all that is necessary to tell you when interlocutors are getting more precise than is your interest.

Well said justlikeyou. I also used the term "evil" while envisioning STS (in another thread) and I believe you are correct that it causes confusion.

The problem I often have with written words is finding a way to make them create the picture I am seeing, or to adequately share what I am feeling.

[hogey11]

Hogey,

Go clean your room!

*grumble grumble* okayyyyy.


and I hear ya, JustLikeYou. Just as you respect my modus operandi, I will respect and accept yours (and Shin'Ars as well).

Like abridgetoofar said, this forum is rife with projection, which is not always a bad thing. My salty mood got the better of me when first engaging this post and I projected Shin'ars reminder as them harping on the community here (myself included). i'm sure that wasn't the intent, but ultimately, I understand both Shin'Ar and my own self better due to the exercises we've participated in here. Again, inclusion rather than exclusion. You are all thanked and welcomed

[Ankh]

Hogey,

Go clean your room!

*grumble grumble* okayyyyy.

Haha, you are sweet, hogey11. I enjoy reading your posts. The below post of yours...

mmmmmm semantics!!!

I, for one, would like to say that I don't care what anyone chooses to call it; I love you all and I love your choices. In this case, I haven't seen anybody running around preaching the sovereignty of Ra over the Law of One, so I don't quite understand what the problem is that this seems to be addressing...

am I the only one who sees it this way? this seems to be much ado about nothing. Is the community currently mistaking Ra as being the only source of the Law of One?

... reminded me of a joke a friend told me recently. We were discussing one topic in emails, and suddenly I was hit by this revelation, or realization, or whatever that was. So, when I sobered up a little bit, I asked this friend if I sounded like someone who just found Jesus to which he replied:

"Haha. No, you never sound like someone who has found Jesus. Except when you’re standing on the street corner telling passer-byes “Ra is the answer! Be saved! Spare your soul another SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND YEARS of third density!”