3D Wrote:Clearly as scholars of the the Law of One, we are interested in expanding our understanding of the Law of One to areas beyond what is covered therein. This is both the nature of scientific inquiry and the nature of humans. You may choose to live only within the material specifically included in the works of Ra when you use its lexicon, I choose not to. I believe that this is consistent with both societal norms regarding the expansion of the use of words once they have entered a language, and with the scientific process.As always, excellent points dear 3D. I might question however the premise that the Ra vernacular has entered into any language whatsoever? I would suggest rather that it is in fact reserved to it's own, i.e. the LOO, and this only to the students or casual reader of the LOO. Utilizing this vernacular then in combination with the 'scientific process' is a bit of a non sequitur in as much as, once again, the premise to conclusion do not fit? But your point is nonetheless taken. I additionally question the seeming connection you attempt to pose as to 'the nature of scientific inquiry' as regards anything considered 'esoteric' in nature which by definition is the antithesis of scientific inquiry. It is a faith statement on my part, to be sure, when I propose that nothing spiritual will ever be resolved by scientific inquiry or study in as much as it would then remove the veil of unknowingness in 3D. Ain't gonna happen, even if we do Grok Ra or speak in the LOO'atian vernacular (i.e. 3D, 4D, 5D, etc, STO/STS etc).
3D Wrote:I would also disagree that that any information outside that which is covered in the Law of One is transitory by nature. For example, Ra indicates that the works of Dewey B. Larson were "correct as far as they went". Thus, one would conclude that the Reciprocal System of Theories is consistent with the Law of One.Exactly so, this in as much as the very example you use is in fact endorsed, approved, and affirmed by the Ra Material, i.e., it's in the LOO? It is interesting that this would be the very one example made, only so much as it is indeed one of the few non-Ra sources mentioned by Ra. I also remember that the Ohasape Material was endorsed by the Confederation. Again, however, your point is well taken though.
Lets us then define what Ra meant as transitory so that we might have a clearer understanding of the word: 'Transient: a function that tends to zero as the independent variable tends to infinity'. Again, one must infer what Ra meant by transient as it has many other definitions, i.e. not lasting, enduring, or permanent. But I think it is safe to infer that when Ra used the word 'transient' that they were making reference to a something that is fleeting, "as though unimportant, or imperceptible, or even perhaps not worth perceiving" (see definitions as well as antonyms). With this in mind, Dewey Larson's work was hardly transient? Don Elkins was attempting to understand the principles spoken to by Ra through the Dewey Larson vernacular. This was relevant to further understand the Ra teachings.
Here then comes an interesting point I think that may be made: Spiritual Study is solely for the purpose of the soul, the further unfoldment of the spirit, or the further evolution of consciousness. There is nothing else. I dare say, all else beyond this teaching point did Ra attempt to communicate as almost not worth perceiving, or as fleeting, or as unimportant, all when speaking to the ineffable as the message. Utilizing then the LOO for the transient, as opposed to it's antithesis (to mean the ineffable) is ludicrous, if not sad, disheartening, and even desecrating. It is in this context then that when speaking to, or through, or from the LOO out of one corner of one's mouth while blending it from the other with the 'trivia of the transient' in posts, radio spots, articles, and conversations as regards ET technology bringing down Trade Towers, or arguing vehemently for a Spontaneous Shift to the point that Wilcock is "frankly getting tired of repeating himself", verses arguing for the NWO, and a host of so many other transient topics, that the LOO (upper case) begins to become the (loo - lower case). This is indeed what Ra seemingly admonished by suggesting that if the transient becomes a mainstay of topic, or pursued, that the connection would then be disturbed if not broken. Here now may come a shock and awe statement for some: I suggest that this is in fact the largest part of exactly where Wilcock lives and breaths professionally, and what he in fact exactly does as his main exercise, and does so to a far larger extent than he does to speaking of the LOO itself. This then brings up a secondary consideration in as much as if the L/L group was repeatedly admonished not to pursue the transient as a mainstay lest the connection be broken, then how might one assume that this admonition is presumably suspended in Wilocok's case and yet that he nonetheless claims to make a connection with Ra? Tell me that this is not a consideration that one is not forced to ask, unless one is willing to assume that somehow he has superseded the narrow band requirement?
In other words, the LOO is almost more used as a reference source and reference point to indeed support the transient, prop it up, and proliferate it. Would anyone reasonably disagree with this assertion? Can one reasonably argue against this assertion? Is it not all too self-evident? And even if one were to suggest that he only does so to the extent of 50%, nay even only 30%, do I hear 25%(?), would it change the point? I challenge anyone to listen to any one of his radio spots and then share that one came away from such an interview either more educated on the LOO as a teaching, or more elevated as to the beauty of life and what it holds for the seeker. I challenge anyone to even share that he speaks more primarily to the Seeker than he does to the Conspiratorialist.
And having put this out there, may one still claim the scholarly mantle when one does exactly what the LOO 'suggests' one not do?
One must ask if this is even consistent?
The LOO is certainly not to be revered, worshiped, or be turned into a religion, but is it not worth being respected for what it suggests, as opposed to moreover simply what it teaches? Perhaps in my attempts to elucidate my sentiments I am failing to share what I see as evidentiary. It seems this point is missed?
Dewey Larson therefore is not transient. Trade Towers and alien technology facilitating them coming down by the illuminati as opposed to the NWO, as opposed to the Rothchild's, as opposed to the Bilderburgers, as opposed to the Templars, as opposed the Masons (and reasonably asking with all due respect: how in god's name would he know anyway, and why would I believe him, and why would anybody?) and all this against the backdrop of the LOO, as regards the Harvest, as regards 3D to 6D and beyond, as regards STS vs STO, as the aforementioned groups are without question STS, is simply outrageously contradictory to the LOO.
By this one simple point alone above, I question it all, as much as him, if not simply willingly honor the LOO by its suggestion. Have I crossed a line, for some, or perhaps made a point worth considering for more? The LOO is better than this. We as serious students of the LOO are better than this. Were he as serious of a scholar as he claims then he too would be better than this. This is Comic Book, X-File/Cigarette Man, Whistle blowing, Sci-Fi Channel literary fare, that whether true or not, is transitory, and as implied, desecrating to the higher vibratory intended information. Is this not so? I am not a religious man. But I do consider myself a spiritual man. I take the LOO seriously. I believe it matters. I believe we all do, otherwise we would not be here attempting to dig deeper. If then I am serious, I would suggest that going to the depths that the author in question does is in fact profane to the literature as much as the suggestion, lending itself the utilization of consecrated knowledge for the unconsecrated.Words such as: consecrate, sanctify, venerate, and so many more, have I believe, a vibratory effect that even Ra utilized. If one is sensitive to these words, as to assume that they intone religious principles alone, then consider another example of the definition of the word consecrate "to devote or dedicate to some purpose: a life consecrated to science".
I am aware that I am asking hard hitting, direct, but nonetheless honest, if not difficult questions as I search myself and the contradictions that to me seem self evident. May one dedicate the larger part of one's life to the transient, while professing oneself as a scholar to the very material that admonishes this as a primary pursuit? It is contradictory. It just is. It seems incongruous to the claim.
This is clearly more an observation than it is to the material facts, but is nonetheless I think as valid and material of a question.
Q