The Confederation

[Quantum]

Secondly: Don moreover (IMHO) was never the point as much as was the intended audience, this in the same manner that the author of the "Ohaspe" was never the intended audience as much as was the audience it was intended for.

Again respectfully, again I disagree with your speculation. Ra stated that numbers were not important

I stated this. Please read again Monica.

an audience of only a few was sufficient for them to provide their message. But that's not the same as assuming that Don was the lone intended recipient. Are you saying that Ra offered all those teachings for Don only?

????? Absolutely not. Quite the contrary? Please read again. I emphatically stated otherwise that it was not intended for an audience of one. It would seem ludicrous to assume so.

And now, are Q'uo offering their teachings for Carla, Jim, and perhaps a handful of others only? How is it that you could even know this at all?

I couldn't? It was not stated as such. Would you as an exercise avail yourself to re-reading the entire post with a fresher perspective. You might be humored with your responses by what you read the second time round.

On the contrary, I would venture to guess that the Law of One might even have reached a larger audience than Oahspe.

Again...This is exactly what I speculated.

that is a far cry from Don being the lone recipient of the teachings.

I am being tedious to your points of misunderstanding so that I am not misunderstood by the readers who may not have read my post you seemingly have misunderstood in it's entirety.

Two thousand pages of a book called the Ohaspe would have been a monster of an intent for a book designed for one single man, as much as the Law of One would be assumed to be intended for just one man, i.e. Don et al, this notwithstanding the fact that Ra left it open for the L/L group to publish or not. Surely Ra had the inkling the L/L "might" publish, and that the information might be disseminated to the public, which may have been nothing more than an unspoken hope of the Confederation to begin with as much as was the intent for the Ohaspe to be for a wider audience more than one, even if but just one single soul were saved in the process.

I think Ra had way more than an inkling.

This is what I stated as clearly as everything else you seem to have misunderstood?

This simple bit of information radically changes Judeo-Christain-Islamic principles forever, i.e. most of the known world.

Only for those adhering to Judeo-Christain-Islamic principles

This was meant as an example only to the free will infringement principle. To this point, it would have matted little if every Christian, Muslim, or Jew on earth had taken it upon themselves to read the LOO or that only many several thousands read it. The numbers would be sufficient to have made my point. It changed these many many thousands of perspectives radically. Where is the free will infringement principle in this example? My post is meant as a question only, and further meant only to explore and/or evaluate "infringement on the free will principle" more than as one to be debated. I don't have the answers. Goodness, I don't know. I am speculating however that I am quite certain that there is far more at play in their (Ra) outline than what we assume. I offer only that there is far more at work here than meets the eye and that "infringement on free will" is not as cut and dry as a-b-c.

I highly doubt it that Ra gave this nod to Oahspe by accident. If we are to assume that that was true I should think it would give us pause about a great many other things that we take at face value from Ra....I'm not sure how to interpret the Oahspe backing by Ra if it is not for noise, short of coming up with increasingly elaborate and less likely explanations.

Extremely interesting points Lavazza. You have nailed it quite nicely with respect to what I've been attempting to question. It is confounding indeed, and has been for quite some time after having indulged myself in the exercise. I had the LOO all rather nicely in place before my read of the Oahspe. In short, it is difficult to reconcile these diverging philosophies expressed by seemingly the same exact authors, as it were. Brushing it away with a quick response doesn't quite do it for either of us it seems.

In closing Monica, please take a moment to re-read my entire post again. You might be extremely surprised by your responses.

Q