Comparing Ra and the Cassiopaeans

[zedro]

The Non-Being and Being dichotomy falls apart if you believe in a creation in which all are "redeemed" at 6th density and all is ultimately the explorations of the creator.

In the Ra cosmology all that exists is conscious in some way. From the simplest of sub atomic particles, to bacteria and viruses, to plants, animals, humans, and higher density life forms. Even the planets and stars are conscious outside of the evolutionary track. The upward spiraling light pulls upward all beings given enough time. All is ultimately consciousness growing in unique directions.

STS is not a path of non-being. It is a path where one must use control and dominance to overcome entropy. All becomes part of the self under the control of the self. Either path leads to the creator, since all are ultimately the creator experiencing itself.

No doubt, I'm taking it as a contextual viewpoint, like an internalized philosophy or system of thought one might adopt for a purpose. That was the framework for the post.

I tend to subscribe to the notion that there are 'metaphorical truths' which have (limited) practical applications depending on where you are in the physical/metaphysical hierarchy. For instance acting as a sovereign individual is more practical to 3d spiritual development than considering yourself as basically a god, because ironically those who consider themselves as the latter tend to be narcissists, while being the individual might instill a better sense of responsibility. Of course this is a generalized example and I know could ruffle feathers in spiritual circles, but the main point is holding certain perspectives as truth may be more useful in some contexts, even if it's not the over-arching truth. This is why I believe we see different philosophies emerge from various higher dimensional sources, because there is obviously no consensus on how you appropriatly teach spiritual principals to veiled 3d beings with free will programming. The experiment lies both in the learning and teaching.

Note I'm not debating on whether the C's or the Ra's have the greater metaphysical accuracy, but I'm more curious about the potentially different teaching values and outcomes (which I believe is Asolsutsesvyl's point). It reminds me of my engineering courses, where what was taught in year one almost gets scrapped in year 4, because it was so oversimplified that it barely represented reality, but it was a useful scalfolding at the time to start building the deeper reality around.