Humanity should respect animals.

[Cyan]

Theoretical pledge.

"I agree to give all of my joint subconcious the order to program my daily events hereforward so that when it is in absolutely no way interfering with what I wish to do conciously, then all unconcious answers and questions about animal rights and respect for animals should automatically say yes. Therefore I can say that my humanity respects animals. My individuality may make mistake."

If majority Aye! then "our view" humanity agrees to respect animals and we can refer to it in future conversations as de jure "my humanity".

All for?

[Goldenratio]

Could you define animal respect?

[Cyan]

Could you define animal respect?

Wide open to suggestions, go.

[zenmaster]

It's definitely an "intention thing", since "respect" here in 3D requires understanding and that is lacking. If one is still enmeshed in the group mind of 3D, one does not yet know themselves. If one does not know oneself then from what considerations or experience does one draw to appreciate an animal enough to "respect" it.

[Gribbons]

Veganism. Been one for 4 months now. Basically because of this video, a couple of family members that watched it that helped me explore it, and another that was a good example that led me to this video. Everything that is good about these channels, is pretty much encapsulated in veganism. It's the best thing you can do for your body, your mind, and your soul, and for animals. It's the ultimate respect, and the only way to say, I am not superior to anything, but we are One.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4

[reeay]

A part of what 'respect' entails is a sense of gratitude and love for other self of 3D, 2D, 1D... my great-grandmother would put her hands together to pray and bow before her meals and thank whatever she was about to consume for helping her to sustain her body.

[Shin'Ar]

Theoretical pledge.

"I agree to give all of my joint subconcious the order to program my daily events hereforward so that when it is in absolutely no way interfering with what I wish to do conciously, then all unconcious answers and questions about animal rights and respect for animals should automatically say yes. Therefore I can say that my humanity respects animals. My individuality may make mistake."

If majority Aye! then "our view" humanity agrees to respect animals and we can refer to it in future conversations as de jure "my humanity".

All for?

Respect for ALL things created is a matter of character.

The process of discerning one's individual understanding and life choices is the natural process of divine design, and one which is very intimate and defiant of categorizations.

The paradox of the Other and The One is a Mystery which shall no be solved in polls of majority thought process.

One cannot please every one, all of the time because All is One. It is this very paradox which is the fabric of the existence of consciousness.

I have made four or five posts this morning after browsing from guidance to service to respect for others, and it seems that in all the main manifestation is that of the human need to categorize into specific understanding which they can then declare common and acceptable.

This may be democratic, but how common are the very few humans who reach higher states of being?

[Cyan]

This may be democratic, but how common are the very few humans who reach higher states of being?

Commonality is irrelevant in a infinite universe.

What matters is commonality in combination with proximity. Ra is proximate of "me" for "now" and therefore, Ra forums is proximate of "my humanity" at least "for now"

others may have different humanities.

[Tenet Nosce]

If majority Aye! then "our view" humanity agrees to respect animals and we can refer to it in future conversations as de jure "my humanity".

If we are to define animals as humans, then we might as well include all other lifeforms as well. If not for microbes, algae, and fungi, there certainly wouldn't be any "higher" forms of life. Maybe we should pay more respect to bacteria as well...

[Goldenratio]

Some of the garbage I eat, I am highly, highly thankful of my gut flora.

[Cyan]

If majority Aye! then "our view" humanity agrees to respect animals and we can refer to it in future conversations as de jure "my humanity".

If we are to define animals as humans, then we might as well include all other lifeforms as well. If not for microbes, algae, and fungi, there certainly wouldn't be any "higher" forms of life. Maybe we should pay more respect to bacteria as well...

Start a poll about it

Thats your first step to knowing what "your humanity" thinks of it =P Ask it and you shall receive from it.

[Tenet Nosce]

Some of the garbage I eat, I am highly, highly thankful of my gut flora.

LOL, yes! But also be aware that the garbage you eat affects which kinds of gut flora can grow.

[Guardian]

Humanity should respect all.

[Shin'Ar]

Some of the garbage I eat, I am highly, highly thankful of my gut flora.

LOL, yes! But also be aware that the garbage you eat affects which kinds of gut flora can grow.

Sounds like you all are your own little planets of fauna and flora.

---

Humanity should respect all.

Respect based on what though.

Respect is based upon something done to deserve it, or something done to not be deserving of it.

Should Hitler be respected just because he was a living being?

Do we offer respect without reason?

It always boils down to discernment, which simply means the rationalization of one point of view.

And yet, when one attempts to voice that point of view, it is declared proselytizing. If one attempts to share it openly and freely, it is seen as an invasion of free will or imposing something where it may be too early for its arrival.

Respect for others is not a matter of collectively devising parameters based upon a majority opinion. It is a matter of individual interaction with one's state of being and the environment surrounding that state of being.

For anyone else to judge that very intimate and individual event is to impose upon that which by its very nature exists only because it cannot be imposed upon.

[Gribbons]

If majority Aye! then "our view" humanity agrees to respect animals and we can refer to it in future conversations as de jure "my humanity".

If we are to define animals as humans, then we might as well include all other lifeforms as well. If not for microbes, algae, and fungi, there certainly wouldn't be any "higher" forms of life. Maybe we should pay more respect to bacteria as well...

Earplugs won't block out the scream of a cow having her newborn calf taken away from her. They scream for days.

Elephants chained to the ground holler and rampage for weeks until they give up and never try again.

Animals have emotions you can't deny unless your paid to be cruel and desensitized.

However I have been learning more about hunting deer, and how if the population soars, so do predators. However, we are so detached from the process of taking life for survival, that there's no way we can honestly feel any "real genuine" gratification for it anymore at all, unless you really know what it is you're doing, and that requires experience, IMO.

---

And even hunters know how to get them down in a matter of seconds. I'm coming to see it as a very respectful and aware way of being one with nature.

[Goldenratio]

One of my goals in life to have all the meat me and mine consume to be that which I or mine have personally harvested.
In many areas the prey species have exploded because we have driven out the natural predators. I see hunting as putting me directly back into the food chain.

Many, many aspects of commercial farming, flora or fauna is frankly disgusting.

And yes, a proper hunter doesn't take shots they dont think they can make a clean kill on. Taking a second shot, or even a "coup de grace" shot if it wasn't a clean kill. All the animals I have taken have been used for food, even gave the skins to someone who tanned them herself to make upholstered chairs.

[Shin'Ar]

If majority Aye! then "our view" humanity agrees to respect animals and we can refer to it in future conversations as de jure "my humanity".

If we are to define animals as humans, then we might as well include all other lifeforms as well. If not for microbes, algae, and fungi, there certainly wouldn't be any "higher" forms of life. Maybe we should pay more respect to bacteria as well...

Earplugs won't block out the scream of a cow having her newborn calf taken away from her. They scream for days.

Elephants chained to the ground holler and rampage for weeks until they give up and never try again.

Animals have emotions you can't deny unless your paid to be cruel and desensitized.

However I have been learning more about hunting deer, and how if the population soars, so do predators. However, we are so detached from the process of taking life for survival, that there's no way we can honestly feel any "real genuine" gratification for it anymore at all, unless you really know what it is you're doing, and that requires experience, IMO.

---

And even hunters know how to get them down in a matter of seconds. I'm coming to see it as a very respectful and aware way of being one with nature.

And that is the problem at its core; extremity and unbalance.

The ways of nature have been interfered with by those who attempt to acquire for themselves at all cost, without mercy,compassion or consideration of anything except the means to achieving their goal of 'self satisfaction'. This is the antithesis of survival of the fittest, in that within this system of personal gain, it is all about 'survival of the greediest'. And those caught up within this system cannot remove themselves from it by delusions that greed, self satisfaction, does not appeal to them, or that they are opposed to it. If they are in the system, regardless of degree, they are a reason why that system succeeds.

Consider the position you would be in if you had lived in the times when man was a hunter gatherer. The very survival of your family depended on the killing of animals. If you had to choose between feeding and clothing your baby waiting at home, or the innocent deer in your line of aim, the last thing you are considering is the screaming grief of its mother.

But, as you acknowledged, there was a sacred bond between man and the creatures which sustain him, which was respected and honored by man. This was the Pagan way which was abolished by the hierarchy because of its barrier to the success of self gratification. And I refer not to the modern definitions and corruptions of paganism which is wrongfully associated with black magic and perversions of occultism and alchemy. I refer to the ancient wisdoms and ways of those who understood far more than today's manipulated minds.

In the system now, man has gone to the extreme, and sanctity falls by the wayside to greed and wealth.

All extremity will manifest such corruptions of nature and disruption of the delicate harmony of the natural ways.

The problem is how does a world of advanced technologies and lifestyles of luxury and greed revert to the natural ways of their ancestors, considered by most to be more primitive.

Many are saying naively that its just a matter of using humane methods or abstaining from meat. But such naivety does not consider the grip which the system holds our world in, and in its ignorant delusion such naivety is a form of extremity itself.

To be extremely ignorant of the system while one immerses themselves deeply into it, is just as unbalanced as the extremity of religious fundamentalism or the hierarchy of capitalistic greed.

As long as we are living in our environment of quick transportation, immediate access to mass marketing, and the many opportunities to achieve ease of lifestyle, willfully playing in the game of the rich getting richer using the worker ants to achieve further wealth at all costs, with no accountability, it is sheer ignorance to suggest ways to improve upon the lives of others.

The farmer that butchers a sow to feed the village which depends on him is not to be judged for the despair of the other pigs on the farm or the pain of slaughter.

What needs to be judged is the system which exaggerates that process a thousand times, because a few are able to promote it and acquire wealth from it.

What needs to be judged are the mindsets of those who willfully enable that system to prosper by their participation within it.

What needs to be judged is one's choices to adopt extremity as a lifestyle and then judge everyone else on their choices and decisions to do the same.

I applaud any effort to make this world a better place. My entire life revolves around enchanting my little part of this creation. But I am in no way going to delude myself into believing that everyone else should live in the same frame of mind, nor am I foolish enough to hypocritically 'outbark' every other dog in the neighborhood.

I know that I am caught up in the system.

I know that innocence suffers at my expense.

I know that there are many things I could be doing that might make a difference.

I also know that I am unwilling to give up certain aspects of life in order to practice what I preach.

Do I think that the only solution is for the entire world to revert to living like natives in the wild?

No!

Because the real problem, the hierarchy, would not follow, and would fight to the death of all that threaten their lifestyle.

Any mass attempt to change the world from its present state of being to a more natural and balanced way of being would certainly result in a worldwide war between the elite and those they enslave. As long as even the wealthy elite deny their 'true identity' for the sake of 'self identity', even they are enslaved to the system. When one denies their true state of being, for the well being of their delusional 'self alone', they become a tooth in the gear of that system of delusion, regardless of the extent which one may deceivingly benefit from such delusion.

The victor in a war between the slave drivers and the slaves would not be the passive mentality of the compassionate. The victor will be the one with the whip and the disregard for compassion and sanctity of respect for The Other, for the sake of self benefit. This has always been the Achilles heel of mankind; the weapon used against us which is the very essence which should be a human quality. This weapon has long been employed in battle with the knowledge that most will fall victim to it. Using women and children as human shields is not an act of ignorance. It is an act of clever intellect and understanding, no matter how deplorable.

The truth is that this is the state of being of the human being. This is the human 'being'. And there is no going back until the elite and hierarchy are somehow forced to revert by some cataclysm or unavoidable, instantaneous 'global change'.

Standing on the side of the road with a picket sign, and then driving home to your 'heated house' in your 'gasoline burning automobile', turning on your 'electric lighting system',and opening your refrigerator to grab a 'quick snack', while sitting back into the comfort of your 'leather' sofa to watch your favorite 'television show', is as extreme an ignorance as the terrorist hiding in a corner waiting to blow up a building for what 'he' believes is the right thing to do.

Your way may not involve murder, but the extremity of unbalanced attitude and complete ignorance of the ways of the world are just as harmful to human harmony and creature compassion as are the terrorist's desires, hopes and beliefs.

Understanding and balance cannot be dismissed under the guise of compassion and respect for all. For understanding and balance are the staples of evolved being; not majority opinion, nor individual definitions of compassion and understanding.

Harmony is not realized in 'your' definition or rationalization of what should be.

Harmony is compensating 'your' for 'our'.

And this truth and wisdom is the teaching behind the Law of One and the very evolution of The One Consciousness as the All rather than The One alone.

When we expect the Other to be our own reflection, we assume that false identity of self, which in its very nature desires to nurture itself in self gratification.

When we see The Other as an 'Other than Self', and afford it the same free will as we claim ourselves, in order to accomplish that successfully, then values such as compensation, patience and tolerance are absolutes that cannot be dismissed.

As your 'other', i ask this of you.

As 'Self', I offer this to you.

As 'One' we cannot escape it without becoming unbalanced aspects of nature.

As 'All', such offering has been both, the evolving aspect of existence which has brought us to higher being, as well as the most seclusive attributes of true self.

Sacrifice is the 'natural essence of being', and it is also the thorn in the side of every 'self gratification'.

The extremity of this 'way of being' has been seen from the perverted aspects of it found on the altars of the Aztecs to the Christian crucifix.

Man has long been aware of this truth, and it has bled through the veins of man's very existence on this planet, twisted into his every legend and faith filled myth.

The main ingredient for the recipe of harmony between The Self and the Other, missing in the 'chalice of human ritual' which they chase after as their 'holy grail', and found undeniably in the 'seven herbs' of the Alchemist's Graal, is pure, unadulterated understanding of this truth of 'self'.

Which is why Ancient Wisdom has always cried out, "Know Thyself."

It was never meant to be a cry to seek self gratification or to assume a temporary incarnation as one's true identity.

It has always been to point out the truth of 'The Other'; the natural Divine Design of duality; the desire and 'authority' of The One Consciousness to be 'NOT ALONE', and how 'It' sacrificed self and individual identity to achieve that 'state of being' in this 'Process of Being'.

Discovering the divine feminine within is NOT about discovering that you are The Creator. It simply means that you discover that what you think is 'self' is actually The Other; ever changing and ever evolving.

And NEVER you, alone.

When one attempts to assume an identity of self, they both deny the desire and authority of both The One Consciousness, and the Divine Design.

And yet, within that Design is the ever evolving opportunity to learn, or to be ignorant. This is the being of evolution of consciousness. And when one fragment attempts to deny choice to The Other, they do so in defiance of Divine Design and the reason for their very existence.

The question of real priority here is not whether or not we should act in compassion and respect toward others. Rather, it is whether or not each one of you can understand these dynamics of 'being', of 'process of being'!

In acceptance and understanding of this Sacred Eye of Divine Connection I avoid the intellectual desire to expose my wife's foolish attempts at blending her catholicism with the pagan wisdoms she also learns from me. And in its place I offer sacrifice to tolerance and patience, at the expense of being a harbinger truth and higher understanding. Why? Because to impose on her being, is to defy the process of being. And such avoidance of imposition is the legacy of love, and the evolution of higher understanding, if only on my part alone.

The Other must be allowed the same participation in the 'process of being' or the process does not move forward. and this immobility is the 'cycle of darkness' which the ancients are constantly warning us of, referred to often in The Emerald tablets of Thoth, as well as the teachings of the Law of One.

And every one who stands in rebellion with a picket sign, no matter the charity or concern, if they do so in delusion that they are not a cog in the very wheel they protest against, even in acknowledgment of any concessions and compensations they might make for their cause, stands in ultimate defiance of The Other and Divine Design; Process of Being. The Being of The One, which becomes The All, exclusively because there exists 'The Other'.

Understanding this is our evolution into Higher Being.

[Tenet Nosce]

Animals have emotions you can't deny unless your paid to be cruel and desensitized.

Animals certainly respond to painful stimuli , and some appear to have capacity to feel a degree of emotion. A sponge, however, does not feel emotion.

When talking about "animals" here- are we basically talking about birds and mammals that are hunted or farmed for human consumption? Or are we talking about -all- animals?

Because if we were, that would include insects for example. Should we "have respect" for the swarm of locusts devouring our crops by letting them be? Is that even what "respect" is?

---

Sounds like you all are your own little planets of fauna and flora.

Precisely. Therefore, if one is concerned about the ecosystem and the planetary health, they could always start by attending to their own.

Kind of seems silly to stomp and parade around in "concern for the planet" when one is continuing to poison and spoil their own internal ecosystem by subsisting on a diet of garbage processed food.

Incidentally, eating well also supports the external ecosystem! :idea:

The problem is how does a world of advanced technologies and lifestyles of luxury and greed revert to the natural ways of their ancestors, considered by most to be more primitive.

By using technology to support natural law, rather than to abrogate it.

But still, I would assume we don't want animals running in the streets, or wild plant life taking over our homes and gardens.

The missing ingredient in the recipe for harmony between The Self and the other is understanding of this truth of self.

Which is why Ancient Wisdom has always cried out, "Know Thyself."

It was never meant to be a cry to seek self gratification or to assume a temporary incarnation as one's true identity.

Identity! --> 111 Thread Redirect

what you think is self is actually The Other

So then, would you say there is a real distinction between "self" and "other"? If so- what did the Creator/Self create The Other from?

[Horuseus]

I don't think we should 'auto-respect' at all. We have Free Will afterall. One of the reasons we are in the game is to realize our Unity, and if what one may perceive as 'negative limitations' are placed on such creatures as Catalyst, than so be it. We all have made the decisions to play the part we have. Those who have incarnated as the starving children in 3rd world countries will find they have done so out of Love, in that they will experience such temporarily so that the collective would awaken and realize this isn't the way. Same principle.

This isn't to state I'm 'for' cruelty. Merely that in certain situations were it not for the circumstance in the first place, one may not 'awaken' to 'better' ways. It is the Infinity of creation playing out, and no choices or realities are 'right' or 'wrong'. All is One.

[Shin'Ar]

Precisely. Therefore, if one is concerned about the ecosystem and the planetary health, they could always start by attending to their own.

And THIS thinking of self is exactly what I attempt to address in my longer post and where we will tend to disagree, and where those who believe they are offering compassion, like Monica and others here, who's hearts are in the right place, but who's understandings are lacking.

I am more in line with what you profess here, but I think that you are still not in full understanding of self and other as you attempt to discern this dilemma.

The problem is how does a world of advanced technologies and lifestyles of luxury and greed revert to the natural ways of their ancestors, considered by most to be more primitive.

By using technology to support natural law, rather than to abrogate it.

But still, I would assume we don't want animals running in the streets, or wild plant life taking over our homes and gardens.

And I agree that there is much that we could be doing differently that would be of great benefit to harmony and balance. But as you note, there are some things we will not concede over self.

The missing ingredient in the recipe for harmony between The Self and the other is understanding of this truth of self.

Which is why Ancient Wisdom has always cried out, "Know Thyself."

It was never meant to be a cry to seek self gratification or to assume a temporary incarnation as one's true identity.
What you think is self is actually The Other

So then, would you say there is a real distinction between "self" and "other"? If so- what did the Creator/Self create The Other from?

Absolutely TN,

The One Consciousness alone ceased to exist when It chose to fragment and evolve into awareness and sharing of awareness with other than Itself. What was born in that instance of thought was duality and sacrifice of Self for Other.

The energy or force involved in that process of being and becoming, is the same force by which All exists; the Thought process of The One. And in it's omnipotent authority, however one chooses to acknowledge It, old man in the sky or Photonic Vibration from the Void, IT has designed and established this process in a nature and manifestation of duality which is seen in every aspect of creation and which dances within the form of every creation.

We see It every time we close our eyes. That tiny glimpse of bright light that seems to drift just out of sight, ever elusive and avoiding our every attempt to make it still so we can observe it and define it.

The Mystery; the Other.

The Sacred Eye of The Ancients where Two become One, where One becomes All.

That very questions which haunts each and every fragment of experience as it asks itself why the other does not conform.

---

I don't think we should 'auto-respect' at all. We have Free Will afterall. One of the reasons we are in the game is to realize our Unity, and if what one may perceive as 'negative limitations' are placed on such creatures as Catalyst, than so be it. We all have made the decisions to play the part we have. Those who have incarnated as the starving children in 3rd world countries will find they have done so out of Love, in that they will experience such temporarily so that the collective would awaken and realize this isn't the way. Same principle.

This isn't to state I'm 'for' cruelty. Merely that in certain situations were it not for the circumstance in the first place, one may not 'awaken' to 'better' ways. It is the Infinity of creation playing out, and no choices or realities are 'right' or 'wrong'. All is One.

But choices which cause The Other to suffer are wrong, if not only because we ARE the Other.

Just because we must be conscious of the Design and Process does not mean that our choices and decisions do not have consequences and affect both that which we become as well as that which our whole becomes.

We are accountable for both our state of being as the fragment as well as our state of being as the All.

And that is not how we define right and wrong individually, but how the process of being evolves into either a dark entity void of love and light intent of self alone, which no longer even exists and is an illusion/delusion, or a light being of compassion for The Other.

[Tenet Nosce]

And THIS thinking of self is exactly what I attempt to address in my longer post and where we will tend to disagree, and where those who believe they are offering compassion, like Monica and others here, who's hearts are in the right place, but who's understandings are lacking.

Lacking... according to who's standard?

I am more in line with what you profess here, but I think that you are still not in full understanding of self and other as you attempt to discern this dilemma.

Being a good custodian to the small ego self and being a good custodian to the planetary self is congruent behavior. Past a point, it would be impossible to do one without the other.

Absolutely TN,

You are certainly welcome to explore that belief. But let us then be clear in our discussions, that you do not acknowledge the Law of One.

---

we ARE the Other.

That would be a restatement of the Law of One.

In my estimation, Shin'Ar, you do have the right idea. But you are confused about philosophy. Your posts contain elements of both dualism and monism.

Personally, the philosophy I have chosen is monism. This says, when the One became the Two, it did not cease to be the One.

[Horuseus]

But choices which cause The Other to suffer are wrong, if not only because we ARE the Other.

But the very conclusion you have derived here on this side of the veil is a result of those situations which provided the Catalyst in the first place.

Catalysts for self remembrance, which is where such instances come into play. Bashar and many others have stated Humanity is a 'master of limitation'. You will find it is through incarnating on such circumstances does the self 'realize' what which it is not, and thus who it is.

As you stated, they are of the self and vice versa. As such, 'we' have placed 'them' there for the opportunity of growth. I don't really ascribe to the compartmentalization of 'Good' and 'Evil' because it is in essence a subjective concept, there can only be Choices and probabilities. Some serve 'better' than 'others', but are all perfectly valid realities nevertheless. Judgement is of the Ego.

Just because we must be conscious of the Design and Process does not mean that our choices and decisions do not have consequences and affect both that which we become as well as that which our whole becomes.

One does not realize the consequences without experiencing them. It is the infinity of creation coming into play. The self will always choose to incarnate in all aspects, because the self is unlimited.

'God' does not know what it is like to be 'Good', without first experiencing 'Evil'. This is why both polarities or ends of the spectrum are played out. It does not mean one is better than the other. Both have their purpose, else they would not exist.

We are accountable for both our state of being as the fragment as well as our state of being as the All.

Partly what we are here, to realize the very effect of choices, from which we can derive what we are and what we aren't.

[Shin'Ar]

Lacking... according to who's standard?

The standard of Ancient Wisdom and the result of evolution; Higher Being. Established and hidden securely in The Source Field.

Being a good custodian to the small ego self and being a good custodian to the planetary self is congruent behavior. Past a point, it would be impossible to do one without the other.

The difference between being impossible to do, or not, IS the very essence of evolving into Higher Being.

You are certainly welcome to explore that belief. But let us then be clear in our discussions, that you do not acknowledge the Law of One.

I acknowledge the Law of One, as proposed by the Ra material, in my individual understanding and comprehension of it, and with the understanding that Ra is also restricted to those same limitations.

Let me ask you TN, do you accept the Ra material on faith that Ra has spoken complete fact and truth without possibility for mistake or misunderstanding on their part? If so, then you afford Ra, a group of individual thought processes, an omniscient attribute that contradicts their very essence.

---

Personally, the philosophy I have chosen is monism. This says, when the One became the Two, it did not cease to be the One.

And that very paradox is the Mystery, which by chasing, evolves The All.

The Mystery naturally asks, 'How can One be Two?"

Our experience is that there is no denying the Two.

Our quest is to understand The One.

We disagree only in what you would suggest as conclusion. But I never conclude anything when all is Mystery.

[Shin'Ar]

Partly what we are here, to realize the very effect of choices, from which we can derive what we are and what we aren't.

Precisely, which means that there is a state of being to become. and that state as the all, will be either or, dependent on what we create as fragments of.

Virtually, will God be a god of abuse, void of compassion, or a god of love and light?

What shall be the future state of being of this God is immediately in your hands. How you choose to define good or evil is not what matters. What becomes your character is what matters.

[Horuseus]

Virtually, will God be a god of abuse, void of compassion, or a god of love and light?

All of the above, because we are all God. Including all those traits, which are considered distortions (Including Love).

It is Infinity playing out every single possibility.

I don't think we will ever become anything. We are here on a process of self exploration and a never ending journey across infinity. There is no end goal, simply 'curiosity'.

[Tenet Nosce]

I acknowledge the Law of One, as proposed by the Ra material, in my individual understanding and comprehension of it, and with the understanding that Ra is also restricted to those same limitations.

Let me ask you TN, do you accept the Ra material on faith that Ra has spoken complete fact and truth without possibility for mistake or misunderstanding on their part? If so, then you afford Ra, a group of individual thought processes, an omniscient attribute that contradicts their very essence.

There is a distinction to be made between the Law of One and the Ra Material. The Law of One is something I take, upon faith, to be a fact and an objective truth. The Ra Material is something I take to be a very interesting philosophy, and one that appears to be rather cohesive, but ultimately subjective.

The Law of One simply states that All is One. There is only One Consciousness; One Thing. There is only One of Us here.

The Ra material is the philosophy built up around the Law of One that is espoused by Ra. Ra, as an evolving being, certainly has limitations and thus the potential to make mistakes and have misunderstanding. On top of this is the potential for distortion of or by the channel, or students of the material.

Personally, the philosophy I have chosen is monism. This says, when the One became the Two, it did not cease to be the One.

And that very paradox is the Mystery, which by chasing, evolves The All.

Yes, exactly. But the One is still One. The Two is an illusion employed by the One to evolve through self-experience.

The Ra Material further suggests that in order to evolve beyond third density physicality, we must contemplate the paradox of Unity. That is to say- we must gaze out at the seeming external "Other" and seek to understand how this "Other" is actually a projection of the unrealized Self.

That is to say, it isn't enough to simply outwardly "serve" in order to evolve beyond the need for a flesh-and-blood vehicle. We can be nice and helpful to others, or be kind to the planet, but if we do not use these experiences as an opportunity to contemplate the Mystery- to seek to understand the fundamental Unity of all that exists- then we will continue to be bound to the cycle of death and rebirth into the flesh.

Our quest is to understand The One.

Yes, but in order to do this we must acknowledge that the Two is an illusion, i.e. that there is no real distinction between "self" and "other."

This is why the path of the disciple is characterized by: I AM THAT. To look upon the world- every human being, every tree, every drop of water or blade of grass- and say I AM THAT.

We could also look upon the world and say: THAT I AM. This is the so-called "negative path."

We disagree only in what you would suggest as conclusion.

What is it that you believe I have suggested as a conclusion?

[Shin'Ar]

The Law of One simply states that All is One. There is only One Consciousness; One Thing. There is only One of Us here.

Yes this is the understanding which enlightenment brings. But as with all understanding it is handicapped by individual capability to fully comprehend matters that one begins to realize.

Even as you speak the words, 'there is only one of us here', you expose the paradox. You speak to the fact that there is only one and yet you use the word Us to designate to whom you are referring.

Personally, the philosophy I have chosen is monism. This says, when the One became the Two, it did not cease to be the One.

And that very paradox is the Mystery the paradox, which by chasing, evolves The All.


[quote='Tenet Nosce' pid='104612' dateline='1352910734']
Yes, exactly. But the One is still One. The Two is an illusion employed by the One to evolve through self-experience....we must acknowledge that the Two is an illusion, i.e. that there is no real distinction between "self" and "other."

What is an illusion? What do you mean by illusion? How do you suppose The One employs illusion?

What you are speculating on here TN is there being a difference between the thought process of consciousness and how thought is actually manifested as creation.

We are speaking of the very essence of existence being energy waves extending from the Source as thought,sound or light.

When you say the two is an illusion employed by The One so that it can experience self, I will say that The Other is a thought process of The One which it now experiences through The Other.

We are saying the same thing in different ways;semantics.

But why do you state that there is no distinction between the thought and the Thinker, regardless of semantics, when we acknowledge that it is by this Divine thought process that creation evolves and manifests as it does?

The distinction between self and other is NOT the same as distinction between Thinker and thought because I am speaking of the process itself and not either entity or source.

The distinction is that self is identity/identification of source.

The process or expanding/evolving thought is simply being. Not a being.

Yes, all is One being evolving into Mystery.

But self is Not the countless variations of that experience each identifying as a singularity or person or being.

Self is The One alone, which by Its own ability and choice, established this 'process of being' in which it has created an Other for the purpose of experiencing awareness in a state of being that is NOT alone.

The distinction to be made is not between the identity of The One and The Other. It is in the process of being One and experiencing existence as the Other.

You used the example of seeing ourselves in every blade of grass.

But you are unconsciously assigning individual identity to the blades of grass,( to each human) and then trying to somehow designate them all as one entity. And it is there where the mistake is made.

I have constantly stated that we are not identities. We are a process of being.

We are the One thinking,yes. But NOT The Source of that thought process, merely the result of that process.

The thought is NOT The Thinker. The Thinker has the identity. The process of it thinking does not have identity. It is just a process.

The One Consciousness thought about existence. That proceeded from it as a wave of energy/light/sound/vibration.

This Thinker and this process of proceeding thought waves, is all that there is. All is One.

But this identity of self, which we perceive ourselves to be, is not the identity of The Source. It is the delusion created in our brains as it attempts to interpret the signals sent to it via the field of consciousness, which is what we truly are. Without the field of consciousness and the divine process of being that brain would be nothing more than another vibrating energy or thought process proceeding from Its Source Field. As is anything of matter which manifests from that process.

Does this consciousness exist without a brain or body?

Of course, the human biped is not the only living being in the universe of creation.

Consciousness exists as process. among those many processes is the human experience, which each human in an unenlightened state of being, supposes is an experience of individual identity, adopting the self their brain has created as their own identity. When in reality a process of experience cannot assume identity. It can experience identity as each individual experience or process, but it cannot become The Source.

Each individual experience, human or blade of grass, is nothing more than the continuing thought process of The One Consciousness manifesting as matter interacting with other manifestations of further thought process.

This process is The Other.

It is not that The One created another identity or entity. And it is NOT that each experience becomes a separate entity.

There is One and all proceeds from It. The Other is that procession, not some other entity or identity.

This is why we are wrong to declare that we are The One or that we are The Creator. And wrong to conclude that there is no Other.

The very suggestion declares that The One resides in stillness and non functioning consciousness. And by our very own awareness of existence we know that is untrue.

How intelligent awareness becomes a process of experience which manifests as creation is the Mystery. There is Source, and there is the result of Source acting/thinking/being. That process is The Other.

The Other is the Mystery, which to us seems a paradox, and because of that curiosity, becomes the vehicle of evolution.

[Tenet Nosce]

Even as you speak the words, 'there is only one of us here', you expose the paradox. You speak to the fact that there is only one and yet you use the word Us to designate to whom you are referring.

Yes, exactly. I never claimed to have the paradox resolved!

What is an illusion? What do you mean by illusion? How do you suppose The One employs illusion?

That's actually a fascinating question! I would define 'illusion' as false light. Light that has been distorted and/or restricted.

We wouldn't be able to fathom exactly how the One employs illusion, being mostly illusion ourselves. However, we might invoke the great Hermetic principle of "as above, so below" and attempt to learn from analogy.

One of the simplest analogs I can think of would be a prism. A more complex, but likely more accurate analog would be a hologram.

We are speaking of the very essence of existence being energy waves extending from the Source as thought,sound or light.

Yes, exactly.

We are saying the same thing in different ways;semantics.

Yes, we are basically saying the same thing to a point. It would appear, for all practical purposes, to be the same thing.

But monism and dualism are two different points of view. A dualist would draw a real distinction between mind and matter, while a monist would say that the distinction is, itself, illusory.

Moreover, my understanding of the "Ancient Wisdom" is that it is a monistic philosophy. Though I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised if a dualist claimed otherwise!

In addition to this, science also tells us that light and matter are equivalent. They can be interchanged, although this is much easier in theory than in practice.

But why do you state that there is no distinction between the thought and the Thinker, regardless of semantics, when we acknowledge that it is by this Divine thought process that creation evolves and manifests as it does?

Where does the Sun end, and a ray of light begin? Yes, we can talk about them as if they are separate, and even learn something that way. But they are, in fact, identical.

The thought is NOT The Thinker. The Thinker has the identity. The process of it thinking does not have identity. It is just a process.

The thought has been endowed with consciousness, and because of this is has the potential to acquire identity. It does this through a process that Ra described as being akin to magnetic polarization.

The magnet becomes polarized when placed inside a larger, stronger magnetic field. The mind becomes polarized when placed inside a larger, stronger identity. The more polarized the thought/entity becomes, the more "light of harvestable quality" is attracted to their mind/body/spirit complex. This light is what carries the identity.

When the light of identity passes a certain threshold, then an entity may be harvested from the flesh and exist independently from it. This is, at least, according to the testimony of Ra. Eventually, after many epochs, eons and an eternity this same entity may come to penetrate the Mystery to the degree where it can literally manifest matter at will and create universes of its own. This is the work of seventh density.

Does this consciousness exist without a brain or body?

That depends upon the degree of polarization.

It can experience identity as each individual experience or process, but it cannot become The Source.

Not while in human form, no. In order to become The Source, the entity would need to attain complete formlessness.

There is One and all proceeds from It. The Other is that procession, not some other entity or identity.

What is the Other constructed from, if not the One?

This is why we are wrong to declare that we are The One or that we are The Creator. And wrong to conclude that there is no Other.

By wrong, I will assume you mean incorrect. But it depends on what sense we mean it.

You and I are two entities interacting with each other. We are two rays shining from the same sun. To whatever small degree that we have remembered our true identity, it is the exact same identity. There is no "my" identity and "your" identity. There is only identity, of which there is One.

What the average person thinks of as identity is not at all identity. That is merely a mask. Yes, I get that. But I am not talking about that kind of "identity." That kind of "identity" goes along with the popular notion of "love" and all other manner of nonsense of the masses.

The Other is the Mystery, which to us seems a paradox, and because of that curiosity, becomes the vehicle of evolution.

It certainly is a Mystery. Especially when trying to discuss with words.

[Shin'Ar]

Where does the Sun end, and a ray of light begin? Yes, we can talk about them as if they are separate, and even learn something that way. But they are, in fact, identical.

Ah but this is where we do part ways my friend. They are not identical just because they are connected to each other as one process. The ray of light cannot create another ray of light from its own construction/design. The ray of light proceeds from its Source and is connected to that source as a continuing aspect of it, but it is NOT that Source. Only That Source can produce a ray of light. Only The Source can produce the thought/fragment. Once produced these cannot assume the state of being as their Source simply because they are connected as one process of being. Such are the processes, and NOT the Source or designer of the process.

We are One because we are all connected by that sacred design and that Source. And that sacred connection, is the gateway to realizing that process and the truth of self, which is why all of the ancient teachings point to it as a portal and gateway to The Other/Higher Being.

It is not a coincidence that so many ancient teachings have their wells,cauldrons and portals. The substance is not in the synchronizations or the analogies, it is in the seed of the Tree. Cut open an acorn and be amazed to discover there the Flower of Life.

There are no coincidences. And there are no destinies.

There is Divine process, and such are we.

Like the acorn, should you dissect us down to our most miniscule parts, again you would discover this Flower of Life.

The Druids did not worship the Oak tree out of foolish religiosity as the modern day re-construction attempts would make it seem. The druids honored an ancient truth which is found there and the Tree, along with many other symbols and analogies were sacred to them for the truths and wisdom they revealed, and revered because of that revelation.

Today science reveres what it observes in the microscope, a religion of its own, a reverence of its own, but the difference is that they are not connected to the ancient sources as were the Druids of old.

The difference between science and wisdom is that the latter is accrued via original sources, whereas science can only observe the remnants and hypothesize.

The Source is key to understanding the process it has set in motion. Just as the Source is vital to knowing the Tree from The Acorn within.

In all of these aspects of material manifestation there is that vital spark deep within which enables the 'process of its being'; that central point of The Flower of Life, the energy which entices the acorn to reach for both the sun and the Earth to develop into the Oak, the drive which directs the sperm to the egg, the field of awareness which causes the single cell of the fruit fly to develop in a Petrie dish solely according to what it senses via that field of consciousness of its immediate environment.

Do you see the common denominator here TN?

Each has its dual aspect and that is a crucial aspect of its process into further being.

The seed must fall into the Earth and take root. But in the same process it must also reach for the sun. A root alone cannot fulfill the process. nor can the top growth sustain the process without its root.

The human cell will not begin to develop until both the egg and the sperm are united as one.

The field of consciousness must have an environment with which to interact or it is nothing more than comatose awareness of nothing, which is unconsciousness.

Understanding such truth reveals that two is no illusion, but an absolute necessity of the process of consciousness being conscious rather than unconscious.

Sustenance comes from two sources, and this is the way with all existence, from lower process of being to higher process of being, and all the way from top to bottom.

As Above, So below!

This is precisely what that means.

I do not attune to the application of the hologram as an example of the Tree of Life simply because it has been used to suggest that each is The One, rather than an aspect of The One process of being.

It is an applicable example if applied properly. But used inaccurately to support self gratification it can be a tool of corruption.

I much rather like the analogy of the mirror where the reflection continues on and on infinitely as long as there is place and time made available for it to manifest. The reflection is NOT you, the Source of it, but the process of reflection is a continuing process of your manifestation.

And it exists only if certain parameters/elements are designed in which it can manifest. Parameters/elements which it, as a reflection/fragment/process of its source, cannot devise.

Its existence/manifestation relies completely on Its Source, and this is the way with all forms that bear the Sacred Flame and proceed to be according to Divine Design.

The thought/sound/light/energy/flame that proceeds from The Source cannot assume the identity of the Source. The ray of light proceeds to be according to design. The thought proceeds to be a conscious process of The Source of it.

All are One Divine Process.

None are The One Source, except that One.

The Two become one via the Sacred Process of connection only because that is how The One has designed it.

The Flower of Life is NOT The Source. It is the result of The Source designing and applying its intelligence in thought process.

Shin'Ar

The thought is NOT The Thinker. The Thinker has the identity. The process of it thinking does not have identity. It is just a process.

Tenet Nosche-"The thought has been endowed with consciousness, and because of this is has the potential to acquire identity."

Yes, identity based upon its interaction and experience with the environment designed before it. Identity which changes as it evolves with each and every variety of environment it experiences and becomes subject to. It cannot assume to be The Source of its very creation/environment though.

Not while in human form, no. In order to become The Source, the entity would need to attain complete formlessness.

And how does that which was created become that which created it? How does the 'proceeding' thought process become the 'source' of intelligence from which it spawned?

Consider that the tree does not become a Seed. The Seed becomes a tree. In this Design does the Source become its spawn, and the spawn become a reflection/procession/reproduction of its source. But minus the divine process of being such cannot happen. Without the Sacred Fire the seed and the sperm remain inert matter with no process of being. And neither can endow themselves with that Sacred Flame.

Tis the Sacred Flame which establishes the distinction between source and spawn. The spawn has it because it is endowed with it. Only The Source can provide it. And THIS is where the One and The Other are not identical in every aspect of conformation.

This is why there is death and decay.

When that Sacred Flame moves from a form of being, that form no longer proceeds to be, that process has been moved to an other and an other process of being continues via that Sacred Flame's influence. Without it, there is not One, or any. With it, there is All.

What the average person thinks of as identity is not at all identity. That is merely a mask. Yes, I get that. But I am not talking about that kind of "identity." That kind of "identity" goes along with the popular notion of "love" and all other manner of nonsense of the masses.

And that kind of thinking is the 'process of being', which is a process, and not the Source of it.

[Tenet Nosce]

Shin'Ar- Thanks you for the very thoughtful discussion! I have a much clearer picture of your cosmology now, and I think we are pretty much on the same page. As we have previously discussed, most of the confusion appears to stem from having to use words that have multiple meanings.

To sum up in a nutshell: We all emanate from the same Source, but we are not identical to that Source. Furthermore, if/when one of the rays attempts to identify itself as the Source, all manner of problems ensue.

In this, I believe we do agree.

However, the philosophy in the Ra Material provides that each emanation from the source actually has the capacity to travel back up the rays, progressively attaining greater levels of identity with the Source, until eventually presented with the option to re-merge completely with the Source in unity.

Much of what they are discussing is how this is accomplished. You are right- there is a sort of flip, superficial, egotistical way of looking at the Law of One and declaring oneself to literally be the Creator. But there is no way around this. For every teaching, there will be a bastardization by the masses: "You Create Your Own Reality" and all that crap.

But realize, not everybody who speaks or writes about these subjects has that particular bastardization in mind. You, Shin'Ar, are not the sole keeper and defender of the Ageless Wisdom. But you are a fine one!

Thanks again for the conversation.