1981.02.03 - Book 1, Session 17 - Oahspe

[Lavazza]

Greetings once again,

In my continued reading of the Law of One, I came across the name of a book, Oahspe. Here it is in context:

Questioner: I don’t wish to take up extra time asking questions over again. Some areas I consider important enough in relation to the Law of One to ask questions in a different way in order to get another perspective in the answer.

In the book Oahspe it states that if an entity goes over fifty one percent service to others and is less than fifty percent service to self, then that entity is harvestable. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct if the harvesting is to be for the positive fourth dimensional level.

There is also this, which I found at lawofone.info but cannot find the exact session number for:

Questioner: Can you tell me who was responsible for transmitting the book Oahspe?

Ra: I am Ra. This was transmitted by one of Confederation social memory complex status whose idea, as offered to the Council, was to use some of the known physical history of the so-called religions or religious distortions of your cycle in order to veil and partially unveil aspects or primal distortions of the Law of One. All names can be taken to be created for their vibrational characteristics. The information buried within has to do with a deeper understanding of love and light, and the attempts of infinite intelligence through many messengers to teach/learn those entities of your sphere.

I did a quick Wikipedia look-up on the title Oahspe, and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oahspe:_A_New_Bible

Also this: http://www.sacred-texts.com/oah/index.htm

It seems very interesting to me. This came through in 1880- one hundred years before the Ra material. It has quite a number of 'firsts' that you can read about in the Wikipedia page- including many bits of cosmological information that would not be discovered for 50 years.

Has anyone here read Oahspe, and care to share your views? Is it very similar to TLOO?

I'm continually amazed at the things I have run across since waking up.

[βαθμιαίος]

There is also this, which I found at lawofone.info but cannot find the exact session number for:

That quote is from session 14.

If you want to see the session numbers at lawofone.info, click on the link at the top of the page to "show session numbers."

[Whitefeather]

Greetings Lavazza,
Thank you for the two links about the Book of Oahspe.
I was looking for this... and, here it appears ... Magic!
Have you read it yet?
L/L
W.

[Lavazza]

Greetings Lavazza,
Thank you for the two links about the Book of Oahspe.
I was looking for this... and, here it appears ... Magic!
Have you read it yet?
L/L
W.

Greetings as well! No, I've only heard about it for the first time last week or so. Sounds very interesting. I may look in to reading it after I finish my initial pass with all TLOO books. Of course there are a lot of other resources I haven't mined yet either. I wonder if we could create a 'suggested reading' thread of material that is not directly related to TLOO. We might be in breach of forum guidelines though.

[Quantum]

In my continued reading of the Law of One, I came across the name of a book, Oahspe.

Questioner: ....In the book Oahspe it states that if an entity goes over fifty one percent service to others and is less than fifty percent service to self, then that entity is harvestable. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct if the harvesting is to be for the positive fourth dimensional level.

Questioner: Can you tell me who was responsible for transmitting the book Oahspe?

Ra: I am Ra. This was transmitted by one of Confederation social memory complex status whose idea, as offered to the Council, was to use some of the known physical history of the so-called religions or religious distortions of your cycle in order to veil and partially unveil aspects or primal distortions of the Law of One. All names can be taken to be created for their vibrational characteristics. The information buried within has to do with a deeper understanding of love and light, and the attempts of infinite intelligence through many messengers to teach/learn those entities of your sphere.

It seems very interesting to me. This came through in 1880- one hundred years before the Ra material. It has quite a number of 'firsts' that you can read about in the Wikipedia page- including many bits of cosmological information that would not be discovered for 50 years.

Has anyone here read Oahspe, and care to share your views? Is it very similar to TLOO?

Greetings Dear Lavazza. I confess that I've read the Oahspe material, and everything else mentioned casually in the LOO including "The Urantia" , both in their entirety. I can share with you that The Urantia is a collosal volume of 2097 pages, whereas the Oahspe is a mere pittance measuring in only at a 991 page monster, and at an incredibly small font at that. Were it the normal font size of a normal textbook I assure you it would reach well into the thousand plus of pages. It is an interesting book to be sure, reading in some senses of the word much like a Biblical manuscript. It is nothing like the LOO to answer your question. It is a Bible. I will share at the outset that there are several extremely disturbing and contradictory points contained in the book in comparison to the LOO Material. It was for these stark contradictions to the LOO that I attempted a dialogue on this topic quite some time ago, but alas to no avail. It seems I've been the Lone Ranger in the undertaking. Given that Ra indeed stated that the Oahspe material was passed by the Confederation I could hardly not be curious, and yet upon completing was left to wonder why it would have been passed at all given the very strong and adamant contradictions contained therein. Some of the contradictions were not at all subtle distinctions. For example, "Reincarnation" as a principle of belief is considered anathema in the Oahspe. I repeat anathema. Now, this is no small or trifling difference. It left me to wonder why the Confederation would pass it, what the requirements might be in order for a text to pass, and that clearly a uniformed message is not one of them. Suffice it to say it left me bewildered. I take it that reincarnation is an obviously stated tenant in the LOO, even if by simple deduction, in as much as Edgar Cayce was acknowledged in the LOO as having had the definitive ability to read the Akasha. Anyone familiar with Cayce knows unerringly that Cayce's readings were predominantly centered around reincarnation as a stated principle of fact and belief.

It leaves one to wonder doesn't it? If the Confederation passes a material for dissemination as if though inferred to be correct in context, and that one material acknowledges reincarnation as a fact, even by secondary reference such as in the Cayce example, yet then also passes another material for dissemination which adamantly refutes reincarnation as a principle in fact, then what are we to believe?

It would be wonderful if anyone else in fact also read the material and found the looming contradictions as disturbing. It left me to not only question the Ra material afterwards, but very obviously the Ohaspe material as much, if in fact not the Confederation on the whole. Clearly both can not be correct. Herein we get back to my point on the "Rapid Polarization / Life on Planet Earth" thread as to examining, questioning, challenging, etc, all and everything, and to do so consciously with conviction, as suggested by Ra, this to further ones search through abstraction as a principle towards growth/expansion/understanding/polarization.

But alas, in spite of all these wonderful exercises, I have absolutely no answer as to why two different pieces of work, both passed with high marks and colors by the Confederation, and one of them, "The Ohaspe", presumably recommended by Ra, would outright contradict Ra, which Ra in fact gave as an inferred positive book review. I do not even have speculation to offer.

Q

[Monica]

It leaves one to wonder doesn't it? If the Confederation passes a material for dissemination as if though inferred to be correct in context, and that one material acknowledges reincarnation as a fact, even by secondary reference such as in the Cayce example, yet then also passes another material for dissemination which adamantly refutes reincarnation as a principle in fact, then what are we to believe?

It would be wonderful if anyone else in fact also read the material and found the looming contradictions as disturbing. It left me to not only question the Ra material afterwards, but very obviously the Ohaspe material as much, if in fact not the Confederation on the whole. Clearly both can not be correct.

Your comments remind me of some heated discussions I participated in awhile back, in a Christianity forum. (Note: It was a public, unmoderated forum about Christianity, not a private, moderated forum consisting of Christians only. Hence, Christianity forum, not Christian forum.)

On that forum, there was much debate about which religion was the 'right' religion. Naturally, the Christians thought that Christianity was the only 'true' religion, with varying degrees of exclusivity. Virtually all of them thought that only Christians could go to 'Heaven,' with only a small minority acknowledging that it really was not their place to judge who was 'saved' and who was not.

Among those who were the most elitist, ie., proclaiming that only their flavor of Christianity would pass the test and grant them redemption, there ensued a great deal of debate as to what constituted a 'true' Christian. It wasn't enough to deny access to the pearly gates to Buddhists, but even self-proclaimed Christians would be given the boot if they did not meet certain criteria.

That criteria varied according to whom you asked, of course. Catholics thought only Catholics went to 'Heaven' (though they weren't quite so quick to condemn non-Catholics to fire and brimstone; they at least allowed for purgatory and limbo), but, get this, many of the 'Born-Again' Christians thought that Catholics weren't 'real' Christians!!! (No kidding!)

It gets worse. Then the Born-Agains argued amongst themselves, dividing according to whether they spoke in tongues or not. The non-Charismatics said that Charismatics weren't 'really' Christians, and maybe even were consorting with the 'devil!'

Admittedly, these were a bit on the fringe, but the mainstream Protestants all agreed that those belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints (Mormon) were surely not Christians! Ditto for the Gnostics, and they didn't even know about Christian mystics.

I found their debates amusing in a sad sort of way, in light of the Law of One. They really took that stuff seriously! I mean, they got really worked up about what I thought were petty little details!

Die, Heretic! by Emo Philips

A man was walking along San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge when he saw a woman about to jump off. He ran up to her, trying to dissuade her from committing suicide. He told her simply that God loved her. A tear came to her eye.
He then asked her, “Are you a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, or what?”

“I’m a Christian,” she replied.

He said, “Me, too! Small world! Protestant or Catholic?”

“Protestant.”

“Me, too! What denomination?”

“Baptist.”

“Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”

“Northern Baptist.”

He remarked, “Well, ME TOO! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”

She answered, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”

He said, “Well, that’s amazing! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reformed Baptist?”

“Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist.”

“Remarkable! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?”

She told him, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region.”

“A miracle!” he cried. “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”

She said, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”

He then shouted, “DIE, HERETIC!”, and pushed her over the rail.

Well, in the midst of all this turmoil, I had the audacity to suggest that all paths lead up the mountain, with some just being rockier than others. They pounced on me, demanding to know my religion. I replied that I was equally at home worshiping in a Christian church (any of them), chanting in a Buddhist temple, meditating for world peace with the New Agers, or frolicking in the moonlight with the Pagans. (I got labeled a demon for that last one, ha!)

They then insisted that it was impossible for both the Buddhist and the Christian to be 'right.' When I told them that the person who exemplified the Law of One more than anyone I'd ever met was a Bible-believing Christian who had never read the Law of One and probably never will, they couldn't wrap their brains around that at all. One person told me, "That makes no sense. If he believes the Bible, he doesn't believe in reincarnation, yet I know you do believe in reincarnation. How, then, can you possibly say that his spirituality is the closest to yours?"

I replied that it was the essence of his spirituality, not his beliefs, that mattered. His spirituality was based on love, and it didn't matter which myth he believed in as a vehicle of discovering that love.

They continued to insist that it was simply not possible for me to have anything in common with a Bible-believing Christian, and that our paths were not compatible.

I said, sure they were, because 'right' is not based on belief; 'right' (if there even is such a thing at all) is based on love.

Therefore, a person who opens his heart via Buddhism is every bit on the path of love as the person who opens his heart via Christianity, who is every bit on the path of love as the person who opens his heart via catalyst, while proclaiming God is dead or there is no God at all.

Which criteria is considered important in the Law of One? Is it belief? Are we ever, ever told what to believe in the Law of One?

What about the later sessions with Q'uo et al? Were not all religions considered valid, as long as the person resonated with their chosen path? Has Ra or Q'uo ever admonished us to belong to this or that religion, or avoid this or that belief?

It's not about belief.

It's about love.

I submit that the reason Oahspe passed inspection has nothing at all to do with the beliefs or tenets described therein, but with its capacity to stir the heart of its reader. Conversely, The Urantia Book did not pass not because of its historical errors, but because it failed to be effective in replacing fear with love.

Remember when Ra said that it was advisable to choose a system of studying the Archetypes? Either Astrology, Tarot, or Kabalah.

At first glance, those 3 disciplines don't seem to have much in common, do they? On the surface, one is about celestial bodies, one is a series of images on a deck of cards, and the other is a glyph. One could ask, "Which one is right? How could Ra recommend all 3?" But of course they all are valid...they all portray the very same Archetypal energies. Just as a chair is still a chair whether you refer to it in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

I submit that Oahspe is simply another mythology. We could be talking about the Bhagavad Gita here. Did it pass Confederation standards? If so, does that mean Lord Krishna really did converse with Arjuna on a battlefield? Did that happen literally? If Q'uo were asked whether the Bhagavad Gita passed Council, what would the answer be? Would the Gospel of John also pass Council? How could they both?

I submit that something passing Council has little to do with literal beliefs and everything to do with its capacity to help us polarize.

The Law of One is more than a fact-checker. It's a doorway to higher consciousness, and, more importantly, polarization. It's not the only door, and it's certainly not the only viewpoint. Do we not live in a holographic UniVerse? Then of course Oahspe will be true for those who resonate with it. That doesn't negate the Law of One. The Law of One is special, imo, because it transcends mere facts, beliefs, and doctrines, in favor of principles that explain how Buddhism can be true for one person and Christianity true for another; how the person who chooses to not believe in reincarnation has a viewpoint that is every bit as valid as that of the person who does believe in it.

Ra: I am Ra. This was transmitted by one of Confederation social memory complex status whose idea, as offered to the Council, was to use some of the known physical history of the so-called religions or religious distortions of your cycle in order to veil and partially unveil aspects or primal distortions of the Law of One. All names can be taken to be created for their vibrational characteristics. The information buried within has to do with a deeper understanding of love and light, and the attempts of infinite intelligence through many messengers to teach/learn those entities of your sphere.

There it is, right there. It was never the intention of the authors of Oahspe to completely rend the veil; but only to partially unveil, and that, using the mythic distortions of our religions! Which abound in characters whose importance lies not in historical accuracy (ala Joseph Campbell) but in their allegorical and archetypal values.

It would be interesting to see if the wonderful and whimsical allegorical classic, Hind's Feet on High Places, would pass Council. I submit that it would, despite its obvious lack of literal truth.

The very fact that Oahspe draws upon religious myths would indicate to me that literal accuracy was not considered paramount. Perhaps the intended audience was those who prefer to keep the veil which separates us from knowledge of our past lives intact?

Isn't this holographic UniVerse grand?

[Lavazza]

Well spoken Monica! Please accept my applause! You beat me to the same idea I came to yesterday upon reflection of Quantum's post. Although you expanded on the idea quite a bit more in your prelude then I will be able to.

I was going to respond, that the author(s) of Oahspe set out to provide some of the basics of TLOO using the particular format of a bible. The implied reason for doing this, I feel, was to speak to those entities who at the time were already bent more towards western religious faith. So in doing, it would be a conflict of interest to expand the knowledge therein so far as to turn away those entities who would probably not accept something like reincarnation to be true. They would miss out on the benefit of the larger, more important principals.

If I may, (without proclaiming the above topic closed by any means) I would like to direct our attention at something I consider a bit more confusing about Oahspe, that being it's long list of 'Firsts':

Oahspe is a book having numerous "Firsts". For example, it was the first to use the word Starship long before science-fiction writers conceived of interstellar space travel.[28]

Too, Oahspe describes a cosmogony that gives details of the field of force of the sun and the planets, including comets. It describes properties not known at the time. To name a couple:

* Describing the sun’s field of force that reaches beyond Neptune,[29] and pushes the tails of comets away from it[30][31] (the solar wind was not postulated until more than half a century later);[32] and
* Identifying the outer small bodies before even the first of them was first sighted[33] (Pluto was discovered half a century later, in 1930).[34]

More true prophecies in Oahspe can be found here: http://www.studyofoahspe.com/id3.html

Considering that Ra confirmed the source of Oahspe as that of The Confederation, how are we to digest the above information? The given information about the celestial body Pluto, for example, is nearly 50 years in advance of its scientific discovery. This is amazing, but is it not a rather sizable violation of free will, not to mention being very uncharacteristic of Confederation sources? With this information I could argue with the strictest paranormal-skeptic that channeling is real, and that (at the very least) some form of extra-terrestrial consciousness / spirit exists. Isn't that exactly what we're not supposed to be able to do in 3rd density?

I have to admit here, that on some level my own skeptical hell-fire was quenched yesterday upon learning of Oahspe. Oddly enough- I have been praying for something like this to forever silence the skeptic alarm in my head that I cannot seem to consciously silence. (See my thread, 'Why do you believe?' for more on this theme) Maybe the vibrational request for information such as Oahspe offers is what is required to find it?

The only speculation I can conjure is that the vast, vast majority of people have never heard about Oahspe, or TLOO for that matter, have not heard so by mere coincidence. Maybe only those who really want to have that information will find it, due to some cosmic law? I am otherwise puzzled. (which, as a side note, is actually a very nice feeling, wouldn't you say?)

In love and all humility,
L.

---

By the way, Quantum, what other conflicts between Oahspe and TLOO did you find when reading Oahspe? And did you find many similarities?

[Quantum]

I was going to respond, that the author(s) of Oahspe set out to provide some of the basics of TLOO using the particular format of a bible. The implied reason for doing this, I feel, was to speak to those entities who at the time were already bent more towards western religious faith. So in doing, it would be a conflict of interest to expand the knowledge therein so far as to turn away those entities who would probably not accept something like reincarnation to be true. They would miss out on the benefit of the larger, more important principals.

Hello again Lavazza. Its an interesting speculation you propose above. If I may, before even beginning, I will confess again that after reading this weighty undertaking cover to cover that I am somewhat at a loss as to Ohaspe. While I might agree that, as you say, " it would be a conflict of interest to expand the knowledge therein so far as to turn away those entities who would probably not accept something like reincarnation to be true", might be true, I can only suggest that until one take it upon oneself to read this monster voluminous text that it will be difficult to describe that it would to the converse be "quite alright" to speak about Starships, Pluto, the Suns field force, the Planets, the Comets, Solar winds, and then also as contained in the texts, which you could not have questioned yet given you haven't read it yet, more to the point multiple God's, multiple heavens, etc etc, which is described at length cover to cover as its greatest narrative in point of fact. Certainly multiple Gods would offend Western sensibilities as much or far more than a simple reincarnation principle. I would logically therefore conclude that offending the sensibilities of the peoples at that time was not a consideration. The Ohaspe text therefore leaves me to continue wondering.

It never occurred to me to look up Ohaspe in Wikipedia. Thank you for the reference. It does indeed read rather flattering. To be sure, there is much contained that is a first, no doubt. I encourage you strongly to read it. I might at last have a colleague with which to discuss it with. But alas, it may leave you in question too upon completion, most particularly and peculiarly after having read the LOO first.

It leaves one to wonder doesn't it? If the Confederation passes a material for dissemination as if though inferred to be correct in context, and that one material acknowledges reincarnation as a fact, even by secondary reference such as in the Cayce example, yet then also passes another material for dissemination which adamantly refutes reincarnation as a principle in fact, then what are we to believe?...It left me to not only question the Ra material afterwards, but very obviously the Ohaspe material as much, if in fact not the Confederation on the whole. Clearly both can not be correct.

Your comments remind me of some heated discussions I participated in awhile back, in a Christianity forum...On that forum, there was much debate about which religion was the 'right' religion...It gets worse. Then the Born-Agains argued amongst themselves, dividing according to whether they spoke in tongues or not. The non-Charismatics said that Charismatics weren't 'really' Christians, and maybe even were consorting with the 'devil!'

True enough that splintering the splinters causes only more splintering. But we are not here talking about the people(s) nor the believers interpretations of a given text as in your example who cause said splintering. We are talking here about specific texts, and more specifically the texts that were passed by the Confederation. It is the texts that are splintered in diametric opposition at several core beliefs, not the people. I do not think it naive to assume that elegant cohesiveness and truth might be expected to be in alignment by either authors of a similar belief who possess greater consciousness, or more particularly by the Confederation as the governing body passing these truths, notwithstanding your larger point that its all about "love verses belief". I therefore, as expressed earlier, am left in bewilderment. As you know by my similar posts and conversations, I am not about an "either this or that anything" as much as I am about the confluence, congruence, balancing and merging of understandings, and more so as specifically relates to certain core beliefs 'of a belief' (in this case the LOO) verses the need when confronted to "chuck the head for the heart", as in this case made to make it fit, or "the heart for the head" in other cases when it too fits better. Given that faith is tested regardless which path one walks, perhaps even more certainly so and inclusive of the path of the LOO, one would hope that the path chosen and indeed passed by a larger greater governing body is a confluent path verses such a contradictory one in opposition.
Case in point as seen below by Lavazza's next question:

By the way, Quantum, what other conflicts between Oahspe and TLOO did you find when reading Oahspe? And did you find many similarities?

A strong dis-similarity between Ohaspe and the LOO has with what I consider to be, as regards the point above about "confluence of a belief", the singular and contrasting concept, as well as stark difference of what might be considered to be the core belief of the LOO teaching, i.e. Polarity.There isn't a negative STS path mentioned whatsoever, even philosophically, and certainly as such not one as a viable course. Clearly without this, there is no polarity teaching whatsoever as such. As might be understood and/or taught in any conventional Christian textbook, there is heaven and there is hell. Period. There is only truth and light, and the redemption offered to be put aright again, having gone off the path as it were, in order to once again be in realignment to reach the only path to heaven. Put more simply, as in conventional religions, there exists only one path in Ohaspe.

Q

[3D Sunset]

This is amazing, but is it not a rather sizable violation of free will, not to mention being very uncharacteristic of Confederation sources?

The only speculation I can conjure is that the vast, vast majority of people have never heard about Oahspe, or TLOO for that matter, have not heard so by mere coincidence. Maybe only those who really want to have that information will find it, due to some cosmic law? I am otherwise puzzled. (which, as a side note, is actually a very nice feeling, wouldn't you say?)

A few thought here. First the world abounds with soothsayers that have been quite accurate at predicting future events, and many of them are even household names to most people in our culture (Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce being just two such prominent examples), but still the vast majority or people happily disregard or disbelieve even the best documents of these sources. What makes Oahspe different for you is that it is referred to by TLOO, a source which you obviously already hold in some high regard. So no, I do not see that this is a violation of free will any more than Ra's telling Don (and by extension us) that after 2011 (or so) the Earth would be a 4D Positive Planet, or that the United States was building ships that could travel at warp 0.5 in the Mexican desert when Ra was speaking to Don in 1981. You see, even if every transitory fact that Ra shared were to be proven true, then there would still be those that would choose to discount the veracity or significance of them. Free will is easily maintained by those that wish to remain asleep.

Ultimately though, all insights given by Confederation sources are given in such a way as to not infringe on the free will choice of others not to believe. In the case of Oahspe, I would suggest that a choice to disbelieve is quite easy to maintain given the relatively minor nature (as well as ambiguous wording) of most of his prophecies.

I have to admit here, that on some level my own skeptical hell-fire was quenched yesterday upon learning of Oahspe. Oddly enough- I have been praying for something like this to forever silence the skeptic alarm in my head that I cannot seem to consciously silence. (See my thread, 'Why do you believe?' for more on this theme) Maybe the vibrational request for information such as Oahspe offers is what is required to find it?

I think that this is your answer to why you found Oahspe and why it resonated with you. Now would be the time to simply thank the universe for answering your call so clearly. Sometimes the hardest thing to do when a miracle occurs is to gratefully accept it and move on. Such are the workings of Grace.

It leaves one to wonder doesn't it? If the Confederation passes a material for dissemination as if though inferred to be correct in context, and that one material acknowledges reincarnation as a fact, even by secondary reference such as in the Cayce example, yet then also passes another material for dissemination which adamantly refutes reincarnation as a principle in fact, then what are we to believe?...It left me to not only question the Ra material afterwards, but very obviously the Ohaspe material as much, if in fact not the Confederation on the whole. Clearly both can not be correct.

Hello again Q! I do so enjoy communing with you again. All that I would add to what has already been said, is to point out that the Ohaspe material was consciously channeled by an entity working in isolation. As such, there is no telling how the message was garbled as it filtered trough the instrument's conscious mind. I doubt seriously that the material was received as it was transmitted, but certainly nothing would have made it through the instruments own free will filters, as it were. I think that it is just as likely that it was omitted by the Confederation source (in order for it to be acceptable to a broader western audience), than that it was filtered by the receiving instrument.

Love and Light,

3D Sunset

[Monica]

Certainly multiple Gods would offend Western sensibilities as much or far more than a simple reincarnation principle.

I've met many fundamentalist born-again Christians who most emphatically do believe in multiple 'gods.' In fact, they were the majority on the Christianity forum I used to belong to. I was shocked to hear them say that, as I had thought that belief in one God was foundational to Christianity. Not so. The newer generation of Christianity, which has now become the mainstream, believes in multiple 'gods' and that those of other religions worship 'other gods' while theirs is the 'true God.'

---

True enough that splintering the splinters causes only more splintering. But we are not here talking about the people(s) nor the believers interpretations of a given text as in your example who cause said splintering. We are talking here about specific texts, and more specifically the texts that were passed by the Confederation. It is the texts that are splintered in diametric opposition at several core beliefs, not the people.

Passed by the Confederation when? When the idea to offer the info was presented, or after the work was channeled?

Remember that all channeled info is distorted to some degree. My understanding is that the idea to offer the info was passed by Council, not the finished work. Therefore, there is no way to assume that every detail of the book is confirmed as literally true by the Confederation, any more than we can do so with the Law of One.

There's a huge difference between granting permission to establish a certain contact in response to a call, vs approving a finished work in its distorted form.

I do not think it naive to assume that elegant cohesiveness and truth might be expected to be in alignment by either authors of a similar belief who possess greater consciousness, or more particularly by the Confederation as the governing body passing these truths, notwithstanding your larger point that its all about "love verses belief".

Undoubtedly, were we to receive the knowledge in its pure, undistorted form, we would see such elegant cohesiveness. But you are comparing one distorted text with another distorted text, both filtered thru the lens of the human channel's biases.

We consider the Law of One to have a minimum amount of distortion, due to Carla's, Jim's and Don's diligence, but we cannot assume it to be completely without distortion. How much do we know about the distortion level of the author(s) of Oahspe?

A strong dis-similarity between Ohaspe and the LOO has with what I consider to be, as regards the point above about "confluence of a belief", the singular and contrasting concept, as well as stark difference of what might be considered to be the core belief of the LOO teaching, i.e. Polarity.There isn't a negative STS path mentioned whatsoever, even philosophically, and certainly as such not one as a viable course. Clearly without this, there is no polarity teaching whatsoever as such. As might be understood and/or taught in any conventional Christian textbook, there is heaven and there is hell. Period. There is only truth and light, and the redemption offered to be put aright again, having gone off the path as it were, in order to once again be in realignment to reach the only path to heaven. Put more simply, as in conventional religions, there exists only one path in Ohaspe.

That sounds like a clear indication of simple distortion to me. Evidently, the author(s) was predisposed to conventional religions. Perhaps open to new ideas, but still within the framework of religion. Look at the Edgar Cayce material, as an obvious example. It too is passed by Council, is it not? Or rather, shall I say, Cayce received some sort of permission to do this work? And yet, look at how very Christian-flavored it is!!

The Law of One remains my foundation precisely because it transcends religious biases. IMHO, that is but one of many indications of its clarity and relative lack of distortion. This is not to demean the Cayce works or Oahspe in any way. My years as a student of Cayce were invaluable to me! I am grateful that Cayce offered his service. The fact that he doesn't make much mention of other holy works besides the Bible doesn't seem incongruous to me, any more than Oahspe's lack of mention of polarity would seem incongruous. I would read it as an allegory or myth, as filtered thru the channel.

---

Well spoken Monica! Please accept my applause!

Thank you!

[Quantum]

Hello again Q! I do so enjoy communing with you again. All that I would add to what has already been said, is to point out that the Ohaspe material was consciously channeled by an entity working in isolation. As such, there is no telling how the message was garbled as it filtered trough the instrument's conscious mind. I doubt seriously that the material was received as it was transmitted, but certainly nothing would have made it through the instruments own free will filters, as it were. I think that it is just as likely that it was omitted by the Confederation source (in order for it to be acceptable to a broader western audience), than that it was filtered by the receiving instrument.

The feeling is quite mutual 3D. Thank you for both your private and public proddings as well dear friend. As always 3D, your postulate above is a most interesting one. You have a wonderful way of seeking out the middle path in understanding. I then by this reckoning might assume you to mean that the Confederation would potentially have had it otherwise, by assuming further that were it completely within their purview that they would have possibly included all that was perhaps filtered out by and through the author, this according to his subconscious enculturation?

Interesting if I am understanding your meaning. It begs the question then: When does the Confederation pass a given material? Before the fact, as in 'does this author seem to be in alignment with LOO principles, and as such we pass the transmission of said material', or 'after the fact, as in when the material has been completed? If before, one can surmise that it might have barely passed as compared to after, this as is the course in the truer sense of a book review. If after, then perhaps only so much as it makes a point, but clearly a very disturbingly garbled and distorted one. Not to be facetious or pedantic, but this passing and not passing principle then leaves much to be desired. God forbid, as the resident heretic I protest I am not that I might be viewed as nonetheless that I might unbeknownst be that I refute as I perhaps agree, that I dare to question the Confederation principles if this is so. Here we go again as a principle to understanding: question everything. Clearly its a rhetorical question, but how then might such a material pass which is so starkly in contrast to at least very core and central beliefs to certain and particular principles of the LOO, namely in this case polarity? The passing of it causes more confusion to the LOO in principle (certainly and unquestionably as taught by Ra) than it does clarity to it if you see my point. The fact that Ra shared that it passed must be accepted if we are to accept Ra at all. Unless we are to also accept that only a mere 51% truth in polarity is as good as is 51% in polarity to individuated graduation. That would be sad if true. But alas, it may speculatively indeed be as true, for what is truth if its primary purpose is to arrive at a nominal 51% graduation?

I leave you with another can of worms, albeit extremely packed rich, fortified, and high in protein...

Q

[3D Sunset]

I leave you with another can of worms, albeit extremely packed rich, fortified, and high in protein...

Far be it from me to act in the role of paradox resolver, but I think that you project too much into the Confederation's process of disclosure. I would suggest that your "Before the fact" alternative is most apt. It might go something like this: A member of the Confederation proposes a message to transmit and has the message (or at least skeletal draft of it) preliminarily approved for dissemination by the Council. After that, a search is made for a suitable instrument to deliver the message. Once said instrument is found, a final review of the message and instrument is performed and approval is granted. As soon as the message is transmitted, it is out of the Confederation's hands. They have acted in good faith and good intentions and they let the chips fall where they might, having no attachment to the resultant outcome. (Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and expect something in between).

Note that in the past such activities have often as not resulted in the message being so distorted that it actually became a benefit to STS. But what of that, as they say, and they gird their loins and continue muddling though. This 3D stuff is always messy, but that's no reason to quit trying!

Love and Light,

3D Sunset

[Quantum]

I leave you with another can of worms, albeit extremely packed rich, fortified, and high in protein...

It might go something like this: A member of the Confederation proposes a message to transmit and has the message (or at least skeletal draft of it) preliminarily approved for dissemination by the Council. After that, a search is made for a suitable instrument to deliver the message. Once said instrument is found, a final review of the message and instrument is performed and approval is granted. As soon as the message is transmitted, it is out of the Confederation's hands. They have acted in good faith and good intentions and they let the chips fall where they might, having no attachment to the resultant outcome. (Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and expect something in between).

Note that in the past such activities have often as not resulted in the message being so distorted that it actually became a benefit to STS. But what of that, as they say, and they gird their loins and continue muddling though. This 3D stuff is always messy, but that's no reason to quit trying!

Nicely said. This was more or less what I was alluding to as possibility. This being the case, we are then left with maybe's and "Turtles all the way down". You may be familiar with the "Turtles All The Way Down Story": "Turtles all the way down" refers to an infinite regression belief about cosmology and the nature of the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down). For those of you not familiar, its a cute short read with deeper meaning.

I will be interested Lavazza to see what your responses will be upon completion (this some time within the next 5 years, given its sheer enormity). Actually the greater problem I had with it was as expressed initially, namely that Ra seemed to sanctify it. Were it not for having read and studied the LOO first, perhaps it would have moved me otherwise. By our mutually agreed probability dear 3D, that it got severely garbled, is indeed my only way out for the confusion it caused. It reads very very little like anything Ra communicated in the LOO, notwithstanding the possibility that "One Man's Ceiling is Another Mans Floor" as much as is "One Man's Junk Another Man's Treasure."

I leave you with the euphemisms colloquialisms, and aphorisms in the truth that indeed "Its Turtles All The Way Down"....

Q

[Lavazza]

I think that this is your answer to why you found Oahspe and why it resonated with you. Now would be the time to simply thank the universe for answering your call so clearly. Sometimes the hardest thing to do when a miracle occurs is to gratefully accept it and move on. Such are the workings of Grace.

Quite right my friend. And well spoken.

I will be interested Lavazza to see what your responses will be upon completion (this some time within the next 5 years, given its sheer enormity).

Perhaps I will take a closer look someday, we shall see. With the enormity of topics to discuss at B4th from TLOO, as well as the new channeled information coming in from L/L Research, not to mention the 30 years of transcripts I have not read, and not to mention other channels that I follow, I am not sure I'll ever find the time! For the time being, I am content to leave it at the Wikipedia summary and those comments that have been left here.

You mentioned, Quantum, that you also read Urantia, did you find similar contradiction with TLOO as you did with Oahspe? or more similarities? If so we may well start a Urantia thread.

One other note on the topic of Oahspe, did you know that it inspired a group of followers, the Universal Faithists of Kosmon? A mini religion, of sorts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_F..._of_Kosmon)

[Quantum]

Hello Lavazza. I am quite pleased you brought the Ohaspe thread up. I've never before had the opportunity to question the material openly with others verses left to ponder it privately.

To you 3D, I wonder if there is any specific reference to the speculation we mutually considered as regards the chronology of "material being passed" by the Confederation, namely in (1) finding a suitable material, (2) finding a suitable channel, (3) transmitting a said material to same, and then finally (4) allowing the chips to fall where they may, this as regards less distortion vs more.

After further consideration to our previous speculation, if true, I am left to comment how sad a state of affairs this would be. For example, is there anything in the Ra material that might seem to suggest otherwise, such as the first three premises being true, but that the 4th and last might be challenged, by either the inference or fact that any said material(s) is passed only after a final review as the last and final step, this as more in keeping with the definition of "passed"? This would indeed be far more in keeping with the term "passed" as a definition, for what indeed is "passed" under the first premise other than the implication of finding of a suitable material and channel only, rather than passed as regards "the material" itself. Otherwise the emphasis of "passed" in this context lies only in the "attempt" as opposed to the "result". In other words, by our previous speculative assumption, a material is passed before the fact rather than after, this by simple virtue of the fact "in an attempt to do so" verses a transmission passed only after a review of said material. In this manner the Confederation would at least lend an opinion to a said material they initiated as being in keeping with it's principles. Otherwise there would seem to be a contrary understanding to the definition of something being "passed". "Passed" in this context of the Confederation having "passed" a certain material would be in keeping with the word normally understood, this as synonymously meaning that a certain material has been at least nominally "approved". I submit again, on second consideration, that "passed" in the context as we spoke to on our previous post would lie only towards an "effort" verses an acceptable and approved "result". In this manner the suitable material in fact channeled and having been transmitted is further in keeping with task and intent of Confederation principles and philosophy were it also to recieve at least a "passing nod". Were this not true, logic then dictates through our previous assumption that although a Confederation material were "passed", it might result nonetheless in the "Devils Manuscript" of pure STS principles irrespectively. Given Ra commented that Ohaspe passed, it might not be out of the reach of logic to assume they might not also have made a comment to the fact that it failed to be in keeping with Confederation principles had it not. If to the converse a material is passed, and this were to also imply that the material was in keeping with Confederation principles and philosophy, presumably meaning that only a certain amount of distortion were allowed to be "peppered" in the material, but that it would never "pass" were it to be so distorted so much as to create an STS manual instead, this then would be more in keeping with "passed" as a definition. I must believe if Ra commented on the material some two hundred years after the fact, as they did, and by sharing that it "passed" the Confederation, as they also did, then they might have additiopnally commented by suggesting that it were as severely distorted, if it were.

This principle of "passing" after the fact by a review, by simple logic might indeed apply to a material being understood as having "passed", unless indeed all is in fact sadly left to chance after the fact by letting the chips fall where they may. This would however seem to be entirely counter-productive to the entire process of attemting to teach. Working through the the hypothetical principle of "passed" to mean that the Confederation takes an active process all the way through the act, it then stands to reason to hope that there may also be an approval mechanism after the fact as well to create a passing ( i.e., A REVIEW AS IT WERE) as well as before the fact (i.e. FINDING A SUITABLE MISSION OF A SUITABLE MATERIAL AND THEN A SUITABLE CHANNEL WHICH SAID MATERIAL IS TRANSMITTED TO).

Curious, and remaining as interested in the thread....................

Q

[Lavazza]

In thinking about this further, and upon pondering your last post, Quantum, I think I may have some insight that could be a contender as a conclusive answer on this confusion. I do not think it is so much a case of the message being garbled by the instrument. I will have to try and find it again, but I read elsewhere that it was channeled at night when he (John Newbrough) was sleeping. According to him, he would go to his typewriter and fall asleep. When he awoke there would be many sheets of typed information waiting for him. This may or may not be true, but I will presume it as true in my case below.

Let's look at the original quote again. See the text I have bolded and added a citation after in italics.

Questioner: Can you tell me who was responsible for transmitting the book Oahspe?

Ra: I am Ra. This was transmitted (1) by one of Confederation social memory complex status whose idea, as offered to the Council, was to use some of the known physical history of the so-called religions or religious distortions of your cycle in order to veil and partially unveil aspects (2) or primal distortions of the Law of One. All names can be taken to be created for their vibrational characteristics. The information buried within (3) has to do with a deeper understanding of love and light, and the attempts of infinite intelligence through many messengers to teach/learn those entities of your sphere.

1.
Upon reflection, and some additional searching of the L/L main site, I cannot find where Ra states that The Confederation "passed" the material. Ra simply tells us that it was transmitted by a Confederation SMC. So although this may be minor, it should subtly change our context. We know for sure was that it was put before the council, in what form or what state of completeness, we don't know for sure. It could very well have been that the SMC in question decided to change something after presenting the material to the Council, or embellish, or what-have-you using free will.

2.
This may eliminate all confusion, at least on the surface. The point was "to veil and partially unveil aspects or primal distortions of the Law of One.". For some reason that we do not comprehend, the goal of this information was in part to veil information as it relates to TLOO. This would be akin to the 'Peppering' of mis-information. This further supports the concept that the Confederation SMC was aiming the information at a specific audience... ? Regardless, this explains why the topic of reincarnation was told to be false, and other anomalies that do not match well to the Ra material.

3.
I highlighted this fragment, "information buried within" simply to remind us that the body of work is not to be interpreted so lightly, or so it seems. In other words, there may well be a greater purpose for transmitting information that is less accurate, say, than the Ra material.

[Quantum]

In thinking about this further, and upon pondering your last post, Quantum, I think I may have some insight that could be a contender as a conclusive answer on this confusion. I do not think it is so much a case of the message being garbled by the instrument.
1.
Upon reflection, and some additional searching of the L/L main site, I cannot find where Ra states that The Confederation "passed" the material. Ra simply tells us that it was transmitted by a Confederation Social Memory Complex. So although this may be minor, it should subtly change our context. We know for sure was that it was put before the council, in what form or what state of completeness, we don't know for sure. It could very well have been that the Social Memory Complex in question decided to change something after presenting the material to the Council, or embellish, or what-have-you using free will.

2.
This may eliminate all confusion, at least on the surface. The point was "to veil and partially unveil aspects or primal distortions of the Law of One.". For some reason that we do not comprehend, the goal of this information was in part to veil information as it relates to TLOO. This would be akin to the 'Peppering' of mis-information. This further supports the concept that the Confederation Social Memory Complex was aiming the information at a specific audience... ? Regardless, this explains why the topic of reincarnation was told to be false, and other anomalies that do not match well to the Ra material.

3.
I highlighted this fragment, "information buried within" simply to remind us that the body of work is not to be interpreted so lightly, or so it seems. In other words, there may well be a greater purpose for transmitting information that is less accurate, say, than the Ra material.

Interesting speculations Lavazza. Thank you for continuing. Let us attempt to dissect terms. When I use the term "peppered", I mean it more to imply 'peppered' as the normal amount of distortion(s) expected that emanate from a, let us say for example, more pure source, i.e. Ra in mid 6th density, to a down-stepped source, i.e. man in 3D. By "peppered" then, I mean to imply "distortion" as is a normal consequence of a frequency emanating from a higher source, being broadcast, to a lower source much like an HD broadcast being beamed to an Analog TV. One would expect the clarity and/or sound to be less than ideal as a result, given the "receiving instrumentation" is less well refined than is the "broadcasting instrumentation".

This leads us to then ask, what does the term "distortion" mean. May the term distortion also apply to "willful misinformation"? Perhaps yes in a sense, but as a purist definition, I think not. Willful misinformation is simply lying, this in the willful effort to willfully mislead. Logic would seem to suggest that given this effort as being one "less than true" would therefore not be an effort that 6th density would engage in. Distortion, I am more inclined to feel, is "misinterpretation", either by the inability to understand fully or by the inability to receive clearly, but not as a result of the intent to purposely mislead. The distinctions I am attempting to draw here is with an intent to split hairs for a purpose. The fine line of distinction attempting to be made however becomes even more blurred by the fact that STS forces may indeed attempt to interfere with a said "true" information being broadcast. Here is where the scribe or channel's sacred intent of "receiving clearly" comes into to play as was in fact exemplified in the efforts of Don, Carla and Jim when channeling Ra. Using the analogy of a channel being compared to a radio, a radio does not distort intentionally. Presumably the intended broadcaster being STO from 4th/5th/6th density likewise does not mislead or distort intentionally. Therefore an STS interference by this definition is not so much distortion in the classic sense as much as it is simply willful misinformation. This harkins back to my previous post that an STO teaching would be counter-productive to the teaching were it otherwise.

However, there are opposing forces that may hi-jack a said broadcast "occasionally" so as to mislead intentionally. Were they on the other hand to hi-jack a said broadcasting system altogether permanently, it would no longer be subtlety misleading verses an outright STS broadcast meant entirely only for STS listeners thereby turning off an entire STO audience. This by its very nature would likewise be counter-productive to STS. Subterfuge is key for STS (think world politics as the mirror here - as above so below). Therefore it seems logical to assume that given the STS agenda is to win over STO adherents that subtle subversion then is key, given that an outright takeover would be a doomed mission in the attempt to win over STO adherents, notwithstanding that outright domination is also a methodology employed when more readily available, i.e. as in after the fact of a slow boil of subversion having laid the ground, but not so much for winning STO as much as outright dominion.

This then leaves the last terms "partially veiled" vs partially unveiled" , either to be examined as an STO term in this context. I would conjecture that these terms are merely referenced as a means to convey the preservation of free will. Unveiling too much is an interference of same. Unveiling just enough however points a finger in the right direction as a hint to the seeker, this without interfering with free will by unveiling totally the reason to be here, i.e. waking up out of 3D through ones own volition and efforts.
_______________________________________________________________
I attempted to take a portion of this conversation to "Life On Planet Earth/ The Confederation", this as a means of beginning a separate thread on the Confederation entirely. If any feel this to be more appropriate here as a separate thread on "Sessions In Focus", we may just as easily move it here.

Q

[Monica]

...what does the term "distortion" mean. May the term distortion also apply to "willful misinformation"? Perhaps yes in a sense, but as a purist definition, I think not. Willful misinformation is simply lying, this in the willful effort to willfully mislead. Logic would seem to suggest that given this effort as being one "less than true" would therefore not be an effort that 6th density would engage in. Distortion, I am more inclined to feel, is "misinterpretation", either by the inability to understand fully or by the inability to receive clearly, but not as a result of the intent to purposely mislead.

My understanding of the term distortion as used by Ra has to do with perspective, not interpretation. Perspective can result in what may appear as bias/coloration to someone of a different perspective. Since we are all One, is it not perspective that gives each of us our uniqueness? Edgar Cayce's channeled works had a Christian flavor, which was a distortion. But I don't see that as a misinterpretation; it was just Cayce's bias due to his perspective. Misinterpretation implies a mistake. I don't perceive Ra's use of the term distortion to mean a mistake of any sort, but a just a variation in hue.

Of course, it could be my own tendency towards distortion talking here! Maybe when I re-read the passages referring to distortions, I might see it differently!

[Quantum]

[quote='Quantum' pid='5024' dateline='1251132408']
...what does the term "distortion" mean. May the term distortion also apply to "willful misinformation"? Perhaps yes in a sense, but as a purist definition, I think not. Willful misinformation is simply lying, this in the willful effort to willfully mislead. Logic would seem to suggest that given this effort as being one "less than true" would therefore not be an effort that 6th density would engage in. Distortion, I am more inclined to feel, is "misinterpretation", either by the inability to understand fully or by the inability to receive clearly, but not as a result of the intent to purposely mislead.

My understanding of the term distortion as used by Ra has to do with perspective, not interpretation. Perspective can result in what may appear as bias/coloration to someone of a different perspective. Since we are all One, is it not perspective that gives each of us our uniqueness? Edgar Cayce's channeled works had a Christian flavor, which was a distortion. But I don't see that as a misinterpretation; it was just Cayce's bias due to his perspective. Misinterpretation implies a mistake. I don't perceive Ra's use of the term distortion to mean a mistake of any sort, but a just a variation in hue.

"Variations in hue" may distort just enough, or far more than enough, so as to create misinterpretations, or mistakes as you say. "Angels dancing on the head of a pin" is the term that comes to mind when attempting to dissect words. Lavazza was attempting to communicate that perhaps the Social Memory Complex of the Confederation charged with transmitting certain information as regards the Ohaspe "may have embellished" said information, or even perhaps "changed it slightly." I agreed as a possibility. But this might in my opinion be considered as potentially having changed the original game plan in fact approved, which I questioned. The Social Memory Complex of the Confederation by Lavazza's example, for example, "varied the hue" ever so slightly, as you say, so as to skew the message, if indeed the intended recipient didn't do the same.

Once again, "Angels dancing on the head of a pin." Lazazza and I then were speaking to the term "peppered" as regards an information being transmitted as being 'partially veiled', this in my opinion so as to not infringe upon free will. I then purposefully attempted to split hairs with an intent so as to draw the distinction between "willful misinformation/misrepresentation" vs "partially veiled" (to protect free will) vs the normal amount of distortion assumed on any given transmission being "interpreted". Your definition now suggests "perspective" to what I utilized as "interpretation". We oft speak to semantics in these contexts, for what is an "interpretation" of an art, as illustration, if it is not "perspective" or "perception"?

1.Perspective: the state of one's ideas, the facts known to one, etc., in having a meaningful interrelationship
2.Perceive:to recognize, discern, envision, or understand
3.Interpret:to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate

So we agree, even if we utilize differing words, notwithstanding that one of us sees the two words as distinct while the other yet sees them as the same. If pedantically disagreement persists in the similarity of these words in context, then surely there must be agreement in the very least, so as to make these terms indistinguishable, by their overlapping nature as relates to one another.

An interesting question however is raised. What is distortion?

Distort: to twist awry or out of shape; make crooked or deformed, to give a false, perverted, or disproportionate meaning to; misrepresent: to distort the facts.

Distortion clearly is not seeing "truthfully" by this definition, whether through "perception", or "interpretation" or by "perspective". But this begs the question: does the act of distortion lie strictly in its "reception", i.e. by either it's perception, interpretation or its perspective,or, may it not also, as suggested in my previous post, precede reception by in fact its "transmission"? In other words, may not a "purposefully distorted truth" of a STO transmission purposefully and willfully interfered with by STS not also qualify as "distortion?" I think so. Distortion, whether an unintended blurred, crooked, deformed or perverted "reception" by its intended recipient, or by a purposeful interference of it's "transmission" by a secondary source such as STS to willfully make it blurred, crooked, deformed or perverted still shakes out the same. A perverted reception or a perverted transmission nonetheless equals a distorted truth.

Dizzy with words. Counting the angels on the head of a said pin is an exercise to be sure, but with subtle terms such as these for whats at stake, worth the effort.

Q

[Monica]

An interesting question however is raised. What is distortion?

Distort: to twist awry or out of shape; make crooked or deformed, to give a false, perverted, or disproportionate meaning to; misrepresent: to distort the facts.

Distortion clearly is not seeing "truthfully" by this definition, whether through "perception", or "interpretation" or by "perspective".

I don't think the dictionary offers the definition as intended by Ra. The term, as used by Ra, is unique unto the Law of One context.

But this begs the question: does the act of distortion lie strictly in its "reception", i.e. by either it's perception, interpretation or its perspective,or, may it not also, as suggested in my previous post, precede reception by in fact its "transmission"? In other words, may not a "purposefully distorted truth" of a STO transmission purposefully and willfully interfered with by STS not also qualify as "distortion?"

Sure

[Quantum]

You mentioned, Quantum, that you also read Urantia, did you find similar contradiction with TLOO as you did with Oahspe? or more similarities? If so we may well start a Urantia thread.

So sorry for this late response my friend. I am traveling quite a bit these days. My only reason for reading Urantia was for the express purposes of "attempting" to understand "what was not passed", so to speak, this for comparative ground as an to attempt to understand what "may constitute as passing". Alas, it would be difficult to explain if not as futile as stabbing in the dark at best. Given Urantia did not pass however, it might prove as futile for productive conversations towards the LOO.

[quote='Quantum' pid='5055' dateline='1251306702']
An interesting question however is raised. What is distortion? Dictionary.com: Distort: to twist awry or out of shape; make crooked or deformed, to give a false, perverted, or disproportionate meaning to; misrepresent: to distort the facts.
Distortion clearly is not seeing "truthfully" by this definition, whether through "perception", or "interpretation" or by "perspective".

I don't think the dictionary offers the definition as intended by Ra. The term, as used by Ra, is unique unto the Law of One context.

Again we split hairs in interpretative meaning. Even in the context of Ra and the LOO I am confident "they" meant that any truth transmitted to 3D by any definition becomes at worse grossly or at best mildly "twisted, awry or out of shape so as to offer a less than clear if not pure understanding thus rendering it as a disproportionate meaning" to its truer truth. What other definition might "distort" mean other than in fact the one ascribed to it by the English language wherein a "disproportionate meaning" is implied? I am equally confident that as proficient as Ra was in utilizing the English language that they in fact had this very meaning in mind when using it as opposed to some other special meaning potentially rendering it as non-intelligible, or worse yet as subject to being less understood and thus rendering the definition of distorted as more distorted.

I am almost as confident that one would need to define it in much the same manner, and would be equally as curious as to how one would define it otherwise? What then is distortion, per se, this in the "unique context of the LOO", as suggested, and this without remotely utilizing any of the above words, or their similarity.

Q

[Monica]

I am almost as confident that one would need to define it in much the same manner, and would be equally as curious as to how one would define it otherwise? What then is distortion, per se, this in the "unique context of the LOO", as suggested, and this without remotely utilizing any of the above words, or their similarity.

Your dictionary definition conveys a wrongness, an incorrectness. When I first read the Law of One back in the early 80s, before I ever met anyone else who had read them and so had no one to consult with, I never perceived Ra's use of the word distortion as conveying a sense of wrongness at all. That would be contrary to the Law of One message. While Ra did pronounce certain statements by Don as incorrect, it was to distinguish Don's understanding from Ra's intended message. Hence, proper use of the word incorrect. Distortion, however, was never used to convey incorrectness, but an alternate perspective; the perspective being a unit of the Whole; whereas only the Whole can be completely free of distortion.

This was my understanding back then. Many years later, I found that others understood the term the same way I did:

from Bob Childers/David Wilcock's study guide:

7. Distortion = anything that may erroneously be seen as a separate or individual unit, (since all is One,) including all philosophical ideas, teachings and concepts related to the Oneness as well as such things as the nature of light in the different densities, since there is only One Light that has “distorted” itself into an Octave. The frequent use of the word “distortion” has been a stumbling block for many readers of Ra, as it can apply to almost anything and is usually not considered to be a negative term. At times Ra refers to their own teachings being distortions, as they themselves have not fully penetrated the Octave and returned to Oneness.

Granted, this is Bob's and David's interpretation, and not necessarily authoritative, since no one is an authority on the Law of One. But I think they nailed it.

Note on their choice of the word erroneously: The error is in thinking that we are separate at all. However, being that we are at that level of spiritual development in which we do perceive separation, our understanding of any given concept is not erroneous at all, but to be expected, given our present state. In contrast to the dictionary definition of being incorrect from the perspective of separation (for the dictionary definition does not even remotely address the concept of Oneness).

The dictionary definition, as commonly used, denotes one unit of understanding from the perspective of separation as being correct while another unit of understanding from the perspective of separation as being incorrect, with the former being free from distortion and the latter being distorted. I contend that this is not at all what Ra intended; Ra attempted to convey that both perspectives are distortions, since neither is coming from a perspective of Oneness. No understanding that any of us (including Ra) ever has could ever be 100% free of distortion. Only the Creator perceives with zero distortion. Hence, everything Ra says, and everything we ever understand, has some degree of distortion. However, just as in mathematics you can never reach the point, so too do we ever reach for, but never truly reach, perfect distortion-free understanding. But still we reach.

This song comes to mind...I think Pink Floyd understood the concepts of Oneness/distortion, and distortion distorting (but never twisting, perverting or befouling) the Oneness:

Eclipse
(Waters)

All that you touch
All that you see
All that you taste
All you feel.
All that you love
All that you hate
All you distrust
All you save.
All that you give
All that you deal
All that you buy,
beg, borrow or steal.
All you create
All you destroy
All that you do
All that you say.
All that you eat
And everyone you meet
All that you slight
And everyone you fight.
All that is now
All that is gone
All that's to come
and everything under the sun is in tune
but the sun is eclipsed by the moon.

"There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark."


(just for fun...my own distortion/speculation of course! )

[Quantum]

I am almost as confident that one would need to define it in much the same manner, and would be equally as curious as to how one would define it otherwise? What then is distortion, per se, this in the "unique context of the LOO", as suggested, and this without remotely utilizing any of the above words, or their similarity.

Your dictionary definition conveys a wrongness, an incorrectness.

Once again, we agree more than disagree? I find it curious that as much agreement is present between us, but that one of us perceives it otherwise...again. You perceive the stated definition as given by the dictionary as suggesting something other than the same exact definition you have just emphatically outlined. From my perspective you are merely offering an example of the definition but would nonetheless be forced to define it in the same exact manner were you to offer an alternative definition. I see most adamantly a difference with respect to the perceiver "not understanding" the full truth, or perhaps even a partial truth, of a certain something when indeed his truth has a "disproportionate meaning" to him than "the" truth, this as if seemingly misrepresenting or distorting the facts or truth of that something to him that would otherwise be proportionate and clearer to the truth were it not distorted.

I believe the only point you seem to be making is that were indeed "All One" that there then would be no distortion. This is self evident. But as all is not perceived as one, it leaves us with distortion. This too is self evident.

What then is distortion? We circle back square one to nothing more than an exercise, this to the correct definition as contained in the dictionary, and as given by Ra, whether a partial truth (as good as it gets) or a total untruth (a mistake) leaving the perceiver with a "disproportionate meaning" to "the" truth. A total untruth is a total distortion and therefore a mistake and must as such also be contained as one of the possible definitions of distortion vs only a partial truth rendering the truth as less distorted. There is only truth = non-distortion. Then there is partial truth = mild distortion. The there is total untruth = total distortion. Even a lie is a distorted truth containing enough of a plausible truth to be believed in the first place. Believing a lie is certainly a mistake. Therefore the word "mistake" must be included if not the word "erroneous". Thus Ra utilizes distortion in the only way it can be understood in the English language, notwithstanding the fact it exists as a result of "all not being understood as being one" and wouldn't need be used were indeed "all one". Alas, this in 3D is the illusion that is real...pun not intended while yet intended.

Q

[Monica]

Once again, we agree more than disagree? I find it curious that as much agreement is present between us, but that one of us perceives it otherwise...again. You perceive the stated definition as given by the dictionary as suggesting something other than the same exact definition you have just emphatically outlined. From my perspective you are merely offering an example of the definition but would nonetheless be forced to define it in the same exact manner were you to offer an alternative definition.

You see my definition as the same as the dictionary definition? I am puzzled.

I shall attempt again to clarify:

Distortion as defined in the dictionary shows A as right and B as wrong, or, at best, both A and B as wrong and C as right. 'Wrong' as in, to use your words: twisted, perverted... UNtrue, false.

Distortion as used by Ra shows both A and B as parts of C (Oneness). Not twisted or perverted at all...not wrong at all...just incomplete.

I believe the only point you seem to be making is that were indeed "All One" that there then would be no distortion. This is self evident. But as all is not perceived as one, it leaves us with distortion. This too is self evident.

No, that's not the only point I was attempting to make. That was part of my point, but not all of it. My other point is that our distortion, as used by Ra, is not a twisting or perverting of truth, but a valid portion of truth. I see a clear difference between the two. I don't think Ra used the term distortion to connote absolute mistakes/untruths. Perhaps I am mistaken in this and you can provide an example?

[Monica]

Believing a lie is certainly a mistake.

Mistake implies a judgment. What is the goal here? To be correct, to have the one correct truth, as in the religions? Or to polarize? To the greater goal, is it still a mistake?

[3D Sunset]

Hello all,

If I may chime in a little on the topic of distortions. I have come to interpret the term, as used by Ra, as almost always representing a position separated from unity in one direction or another toward a resulting dichotomy. Let me explain, while contemplating this question I was drawn to the following quote early in Session I:

Questioner: (The question was lost because the questioner was sitting too far from the tape recorder to be recorded.)

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define the infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the
mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.
May we enunciate in more detail?

So at infinity is unity. To move away from unity is to "distort" unity. Movement away from unity is in the direction of a dichotomy. The first distortion is free will, which leads to the second distortion love which creates light. Thus the first visible distortion is related to balancing the dichotic distortions of love and light. This give us love/light and light/love.

Questioner: In yesterday’s material you mentioned that the first distortion was the distortion of free will. Is there a sequence, a first, second, and third distortion of the Law of One?

Ra: I am Ra. Only up to a very short point. After this point, the many-ness of distortions are equal one to another. The first distortion, free will, finds focus. This is the second distortion known to you as Logos, the Creative Principle or Love. This intelligent energy thus creates a distortion known as Light. From these three distortions come many, many hierarchies of distortions, each having its own paradoxes to be synthesized, no one being more important than another.

Questioner: You also said that you offered the Law of One which is the balancing of love/light with light/love. Is there any difference between light/love and love/light?

Ra: I am Ra. This will be the final question of this time/space. There is the same difference between love/light and light/love as there is between teach/learning and learn/teaching. Love/light is the enabler, the power, the energy giver. Light/love is the manifestation which occurs when light has been impressed with love.

Later we see that Ra refers to many such distortions (time/space and space/time, teach/learn and learn/teach, sickness/health and health/sickness, responsibility/honor and honor/responsibility, even STO/STS is a dichotomy with STS/STO).

So when (or if) Ra refers to distortions in a document, I view this as indications of distortion toward some dichotomy. Let's call it truth/falsity. Nothing, is ever completely true, and nothing is completely false. What we have are documents that are distorted to a grater or lesser extent toward truth/falsity or falsity/truth. The Law of One has a very great distortion toward truth/falsity. Oahspe still may have a net distortion toward truth/falsity but not as great such a distortion as does the Law of One.

By this definition distortion does not provide an absolute measure of a teach/learn away from truth, but rather indicates a placement along a continuum which can be thought of as going from minus infinity (infinitely false) to plus infinity (infinitely true. By the way, note that truth and falsity converge at infinity.), with some midpoint in between which represents roughly equally potions of truth and falsity.

One final thought is that the net distortion of a teach/learn changes over time as the message is further distorted by those that learn/teach. This was particularly the case with Ra's instructions when he caused the pyramids to be built. The initial message was more distorted toward truth/falsity. Over time however, those that worked with the teach/learning further distorted it away from the message that Ra had taught/learned. Thus was born the duty/honor to attempt to restore the message to "it's original distortion", or by my earlier discussion, to it's original place on the truth/falsity continuum. Note also that by this definition, it is possible - but essentially unheard of on 3D Earth - for a teach/learning to become more distorted toward truth/falsity, if it is learn/taught and taught/learned by those with a pure intention toward STO and the Law of One.

I'm not sure if this is at all beneficial to the discussion, but I humbly offer it for your consideration.

Love and Light (in roughly equal portions, I think),

3D Sunset

[Quantum]

I'm not sure if this (the above post) is at all beneficial to the discussion, but I humbly offer it for your consideration.
Love and Light (in roughly equal portions, I think),
3D Sunset

Beautifully stated dear friend. I couldn't agree more. The example of the prism Ra offers is most beneficial. As stated earlier in my above post, there is only "One Truth". There is only "ONE light". However there are many prisms ad infinitum as there are souls gazing through them. Life emanating as we understand it, this through our present faculties in 3D, is the down-stepped many energy formations of IT, this in all of its wondrous and varied forms from the ONE Source which are those distortions, and as they must be. Case in point, where Monica reads and understands the dictionary definition of distortion to be inclusive of "mistakes" and "wrongness" implied, I do not. That is to say I do not see it as wrong, notwithstanding that in 3D distortion may nonetheless "feel" very very very wrong. To argue against this pragmatically is futile for any flesh encased soul in 3D. To equally suggest that certain distortions also do not feel as though they are mistakes is equally futile. Philosophically it may be agreed that a certain distortion is not a wrong, or is not a mistake, but try to argue this knee deep in 3D up to your elbows in a particular distortion where pain and agony are very real as a result. Let me be clear, I agree that distortion is not a "mistake" or that it is a "wrong". Pragmatically this is an arm chair philosophy to a certain extent, while yet ironically being an "all at once" necessary philosophical and abstract necessity to see otherwise in order to see ones way through it. Does this make sense? Distortion is a mistake. It is wrong. Distortion is not a mistake. It is not a wrong. It is both. As much as is a distortion often a lovely and wondrous and imbibing and glorious one in all of its many and varied beautiful forms, it is also as much of a distortion in its manifested pain. So too is often a distortion also simply a neutral distortion. It aint nuthin until its called somethin by the perceiver.

Distortion is simply not being able to see the ONE CLEAR TRUTH while forced to gaze through the prism and its fractions of light/life through its many colored hues. The light is not the prism. Yet without the prism in this 3D there is no light to behold. Thus is distortion as defined in the dictionary a "disproportionate meaning" to the truer truth as I offered before. Should one choose to view this as a "mistake" or a "wrong-ness" they wouldn't necessarily be wrong in doing so, this as a more down-stepped energy of the same truth seen through the same prism. I would however disagree only in as much as it most definitely "appears" to appear "wrong", or may appear as a "mistake", this in spite of our philosophical protests to the contrary. That it mustn't philosophically appear as "wrong" in spite of it feeling, tasting, and lived as "wrong" is where I once again pragmatically suggest it shakes out that way nonetheless. Here is where the rubber hits the road and why we are here...to gather the eggs of life's experience. Life in 3D presumably requires very much that it shakes out that way through its distortion for its lessons, less the entire lesson be lost. In closing, distortion is as often manifested as beautiful/right as it is as often painful/wrong, in spite of the fact that philosophically it is neither. Your the Ump, and it aint nuthin till ya call it. (Yogi Berra)

Pragmatically yours in L/L,

Q

[Lavazza]

I've found more fuel for the fire of our discussion:

38/3.19. It is not the intention, in these revelations, to give new calculations in regard to occurrences on the planets; it is a trifling difference whether a man prophesies by a vortex or by a planet. But where he errs in judging the cause of things, he should be put on the right road. In those cases where he has had no knowledge of the forces and currents of the unseen worlds and their dominion over the seen worlds, only revelation can reach him.

It seems to me that this statement indicates a clear difference of philosophy between the confederation and the Oahspe author. I would expect a confederation entity to infact take the exact opposite stance, that we of Earth should proceed in confusion and come to find the truth of matters by our own means. Basically the principals of freewill, which as we know Confederation sources make no small issue of.

I just found this when reading a chapter from the book of Cosmography, I'm not in fact reading the text from start to finish. Maybe you remember running across this in your reading of Oahspe, Quantum? What do you take from this?

As an aside, I'm fascinated with the concepts of prophecy and revelation. I may start a thread on it soon.

[Monica]

If I may chime in a little on the topic of distortions. I have come to interpret the term, as used by Ra, as almost always representing a position separated from unity in one direction or another toward a resulting dichotomy.

I agree: very beautifully said!

---

There seems to be a lot of overlap between this thread and The Confederation thread. There were several mentions of Oahspe in that thread, and I responded with the following, which I am now moving to this thread, where it belongs:

Is the Council past polarity? Or does it include STS-biased (even if no longer polarized) entities as well? Could Oahspe have passed for the purpose of teaching STS entities? Now there's a thought! Does the Council 'pass' STS missions or only STO missions?

If STS missions are approved by Council, with no show of favoritism, then indeed the channeled work might have passed, full of what would be considered distortion to an STO reader. But to an STS reader...it might be right on! Are we not assuming that the Council passes only STO works? Do we have a reason to make that assumption? We know Ra/Q'uo are biased to STO, but do we know that about the Council? Aren't they past polarity, as are Ra/Q'uo? But not on an STO mission like Ra/Q'uo and therefore obliged to pass STS missions as well?

Quantum, what do you think of my suggestion that Oahspe was passed because of its service to the STS community? Since you've read the book, I am interested in your opinion on this. I think my idea offers a valid possibility as to the whole point of this thread.

[Quantum]

There seems to be a lot of overlap between this thread and The Confederation thread.

Quantum, what do you think of my suggestion that Oahspe was passed because of its service to the STS community? Since you've read the book, I am interested in your opinion on this. I think my idea offers a valid possibility as to the whole point of this thread.

How coincidental that at the same moment I was writing the same answer you asked to the same overlapping question/thread here at the same moment I was answering it on the Oahspe thread (p-h--e-w...talk about torturing the language - that was a tortured statement in English).

In short, it seems highly improbable,

Q