Pantheism

[Fang]

Dear Mr. Fang,

Thank you for returning our discussion to the main forum's objective: 'Strictly Law of One Material'.

I apologize if my notes weren't clear enough, but for sure you already have noted, English is not my coloquial language, so I have serious difficult to understand the meaning of Ra's “far-fetched” phases and I think other people have the same feeling on that too.

On my previous notes, I'm trying to follow the forum's rules just copy and paste some Ra Material's paragraphs for this discussion, except on my original note, where I needed to explain you what I do believe, in order to place my doubts about my understanding on the Law of One.

My intention on this procedure was not to do proselitism (I'm an electronic product designer, not a priest), but to present a logical and clean thoughts sequence (at least to me) about the Creator, His attributes and the refutation on the pantheism (verything is the Creator, creatures are parts of the Creator).

In 1982, Professor Don Elkins presented the Ra Material a cientific experiment data only but this information is so fascinating (extraterrestrials, Service to others, Service to Yourself, Conferation, Orion group, wanderers, densities, harvest, ancient history, cience, etc) and because that possiblly people abdicate to analyze it critical and rationally and Ra, his humble messenger, would approve that, for sure, since this information is true.

Having the Ra Material / Law of One in written form is advantage for our analysis, since one can reads it many times and try to understand subjectively its meaning.

And when I read this:

“My friends, it may seem to you that a thought of a nature other than
one of love and brotherhood might be a thought generated not of our Creator. This is not possible, my friends. All thought that is generated is generated by the Creator. All things that are generated are generated by the Creator. He is all things and is in all places, and all of the consciousness and all of the thought that exists is the thought of our
Creator. His infinite number of parts all have free will, and all may generate in any way they choose. All of His parts communicate with all of the creation, in His entire and infinite sense."

And at the first session, pages 71-72, Ra defines the Law of One as following:

"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."

Based on whole Ra Material text only, please, explain me why the highlighted texts don't express the same concepts from pantheism.

So what are the differences between Law of One and pantheism?

Thank you.

Firstly, thankyou for sharing your view, it's healthy to question this material or anything that could radically change one's outlook. Now many people may take the Ra Material on "faith", I have noticed a lot of people talking about some sort of divide between the "believers" and the "non believers" to be honest though I personally am neither of these. I, like you wish to investigate the Ra material in a rational manner.

I didn't take your words as an attempt of conversion, you're obviously someone who wants to learn, I hope I am able to teach in a small manner.

Now, I'm still a student, I have not had the teaching in the fields that I investigate yet but from what I know there are differences between pantheism (as laid out by Spinoza) and the Ra Material. On that note though I must say that many of the refutations of Spinoza's pantheism have shown a rather significant misunderstanding of what he was conveying and so are refuting a concept of their own creation.
As far as the "far fetched" aspects of the Ra Material, if one takes a naturalistic approach as Spinoza did in forming his philosophy there does come a time (at least from my experience) when it becomes clear how these seemingly "out there" things could emerge into being within the framework Ra described.

Spinoza's philosophy, for me personally, is the maximum height of human thought. The model of reality laid out by Ra seems to be a development of these ideas. So yes, when glancing at the two they do seem remarkably similar and I for one would really rather people go towards Spinoza than Ra as many are not willing to apply rational evaluation to the text but rather use it as confirmation of infinite possibilities and to validate their own neurotic beliefs.

Belief wavers compared to knowledge, I think you and me would get along well.
If you come back and see this I wish you all the best.

I'm sorry if this is lacking in substance but I am rather pressed for time at the moment.