1981.02.03 - Book 1, Session 17 - Oahspe

[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