Proof of Ra's existence

[PeaceandLove]

I have not read the entire LoO series, so hopefully an expert can help me with this answer.

Any skeptic scientist would ask the one who is channeling an entity a "test" question to verify the validity of the entity being channeled. This would usually be a little known fact that there is no way the channeler herself would never know.

My question is, is a question ever posed in the LoO which would scientifically validate the existance of Ra?

I'd love to see as many pieces of evidence as you guys can find!

If I were the questioner, I would make a point of asking many such questions, so as to ward of any debunkers.

Thanks for your help! :)

- Mike

[Billuminous]

The kind of proof you seek would probably create more questions than answers. Material proof is petty compared to intuitive verification.

[Firewalker]

Yes, I think it said loads of really neat science stuff, such as proposing through seperate questions a unified physics theorum.

Also, certain things about our solar system and spiraling light. I think if you, or anyone can point you to, Davids scientific validations of this material, you'd be on the right track.

Also is the fact that not one question is WRONG. That is the real test I think. Not what is right, but using educated guess work, even informed educated guess work, you are going to be wrong at least once.

Alas, sorry I can't find the quotes personally but I'm strapped for time. Also, I while I have read the Ra material, and can't really describe directly the good things about it (Although there are MANY, it is one of a kind). I find it a little intense at times.

[PeaceandLove]

I agree, that intuitive proof is usually enough for me. I intuitively believe that Ra is a real entity. But a real scientist would say "you shouldn't let the mouse run the experiment", meaning that someone from outside the belief system needs to test the validity of the one being channeled.

Here's a relevant statement from someone at skeptic magazine:

"Actually you can put a channeler to the test. One should be able to speak the--or read--ancient languages if one is channeling if you are from the ancient near east. One channeler who was channeling a 30,000 year old man claiming to be from particular location was asked, "What's the weather like there?" geologists and climatologist knew--why didn't the person from the era know if it was an ice age or not? -Another channeler who was claiming to channel someone alive in 1938 could not answer the question "who is president?" Of course any one alive during FDRs long Presidency would have known the answer to that.

Many channelers spout feel good or doomsday gibberish that any imaginative person could make up off he top of their heads."

My thought is, since Ra is an "all knowing" entity, one could simply ask it to speak in Japanese for example (assuming the channeler had no knowledge of the language) and he would have no problem communicating in that language during the session. Right? I would be suprised if something like this hasn't been done.

David, if you read this, has something to this effect been tried during your channeling?

[Moderator: since asking DW direct questions is not done on the forum, I can answer this last question. Yes, DW has had instances where he would write in another language. The Ra we speak of is from the Law of One Books channelled by Carla Reuckert from 1981-84 when contact ended, so we could not ask these questions-if you want to learn more, DC main site has a wealth of information]

[SuperManny]

I would suggest that you would likely feel better if you were less concerned about what others think about Ra, or anything else for that matter. People will generally think whatever they will, and it's usually a waste of energy to try to get them to change their minds. So if anyone asks you whether Ra is 'real', why don't you just tell them to read the books and form their own conclusions? :)

I think if I had the opportunity to ask the Ra a question or two, I can just about guarantee you that I wouldn't be asking him to channel something in Japanese.:rolleyes:

And if, in your experience "channelers spout feel good" stuff, then simply thank them for helping you feel good, and don't worry if that other person thinks it's gibberish.

[PeaceandLove]

The "channelers spout feel good" quote was not my opinion, but a direct quote from someone at Skeptic magazine. I certainly don't feel this way.

And, let me clarify, this line of questioning shouldn't be considered a negative attack in any way. I mean, if you have contact with an all knowing entity, I would hope you would treat the experience with all seriousness and get as much imperical evidence as possible!

I also agree about probably not wanting to waste your time asking Ra a question in Japanese. But lets phrase that scenario differently: What if a Japanese expert on Parapsychology wanted to interview Ra, and didn't speak english? He would simply be able to speak his own language and get a response back in the same fluent dialect, right? Certainly this has been done over the many years of communication with Ra. Does anyone know of an instance similar to this scenario?

[Chris Hamilton]

What if a Japanese expert on Parapsychology wanted to interview Ra, and didn't speak english? He would simply be able to speak his own language and get a response back in the same fluent dialect, right? Certainly this has been done over the many years of communication with Ra. Does anyone know of an instance similar to this scenario?

Dear Shop,

First, I am thinking that you haven't read The Law of One books? If you had, you wouldn't be asking this, I believe. Again, the Ra entity as channelled by Carla Reuckert in the early 80's no longer communicates through Carla. That communication ended in the 80's when one in the group died. So, to me at least, your question is not relevant-there is no answer to a 'what if' scenario. In the books however, Ra indicates they are NOT all-knowing and are subject to the channellers' filter. Thus mistakes can be made (and some were). But, if you had read the books, you would know this.

Second, we are not focusing on other channellers who may be channelling their entities they call 'Ra'. In fact our rules are very clear that we do not discuss other channellers on DC forum. David Wilcock has a recommended reading list in the Announcements section that does approve some channelled works, but other channellers are not approved on this forum.

So, if you could tell us all why you seem to be 'stuck' on Ra being all seeing and knowing, I would be interested to hear. Also, if you haven't read the books, then you shouldn't be posting in a thread designed for those who have read them. The Law of One thread is very strict there. Thanks for listening and looking forward to your response. Chris

[PeaceandLove]

Chris, thank you for the notes on my post. As I said in the very first line "I have not read the whole LoO series" but I have read maybe half of it. I'm fully aware that Carla does not communicate with Ra anymore, but was more directing my question to those who are experts in the LoO.

I was also not aware of the passage where he states that he is not all knowing, and is subject to the channellers' filter. I just assumed that Ra had the knowledge of it's entire collective being, which would include all of our collective knowledge, and then some. ;) Can you direct me to that passage?

Anyway, I thought my question was sincere enough that I would receive a number of good answers, but instead I seem to be sensing some hostility to my inquiry. For that, I apologize. I never intended to insult anyone, or make anyone second-guess their belief system.

Because of this unintended effect, I plan on ending my inquiry into this subject. I hope to contribute positively to another thread! See you all there.

[soup]

...My question is, is a question ever posed in the LoO which would scientifically validate the existance of Ra?
...


In pondering this, there may be a possibility of looking for the answers that contain words that transcend Carla's vocabulary. It seems curious for a person to speak with words outside of their vocabulary, in context. From these types of answers there's likely corresponding questions. In an indirect way, these questions may pose some validation of sorts, even though the subject of such questions may seem unrelated. On some level, there can dissolve a sense of separation where the concepts of names discerning things like Ra as being mutually exclusive can seem superfluous.


soup

[litllady]

I find it odd that when someone not 100% familar with ALL of RAs messages that some in this forum feel the need to make the ones asking the curious questions almost like they shouldnt be asking questions untilll they read everything.

There is a line here in this forum because the DW material is unique in its own right as well as the channeled material many follow on here is unique in its own right. One can be a fan of DW written material and not be a fan of channeled material. For those who do follow the RA information, please dont let the ones that may be a little curious of it feel like they shouldnt ask doubtful questions. It is our nature to doubt, to weigh, to balance, to figure, to understand ect....

Some people feel a pull twards the RA material, but they might be scared a little of putting trust in a other worldly figure to tell us all sorts of things we never heard of. Like the whole 4D positive and 4D negative and everyone will be taken from our mother plant earth....for some people, like myself, much of RAs words are wonderful and inspiring, and alot of things makes since. But when you run across even one little thing that your gutt says 'no' to, its really hard on the emotions and mind.

To me, there is no true test question...for how do we know the limits of the knowledge...it might seem infininate compared to our knowledge. To me, this still is not the icing on the cake I was looking for.

I feel a bias opinion from the ones who follow the RA material. I feel like some of those who put 100% trust in this material are just as closed minded sometimes as some of the religions. How can you find your higher self when you are told how to find it. Isnt the real beauty about finding your higher self the natural path that your inner self guides you all along in your life. If you feel there is more to you then this fleshy life here on earth, then you should have the feeling there is a spirit with you and the feeling to follow that spirit should be overwhelming more then any material you read.

I have really had strong debates within myself on rather if I belong in this forum or not. The thing that pulls me back here ever time is Davids unbelievable understanding of the science of the Divine in everything there is. I have always felt science prooved God, God is the science of everything. That is why I came here and why I remain.

PLEASE understand, I am not debunking the RA stuff....but I feel like some here in the forum almost look at theirselves 'higher' to those that struggle with the acceptance of the material.

I here people all the time on here saying, OK, yeah, we have to be 51% service to others, and this is where we are, then it will happen this way, and some will go here, and some will go there ect ect ect......NO ONE KNOWS!!!!!

Really, no one truly knows, no one here can prove that any channeled info is not influenced in some negative way through distortion or even through the channels desires for their own needs....obviously, Ra himself says something similar to this about distortion.

Its great to read inspirational material of all sorts....but ultimately, the voice inside is the one that your ment to listen to. Your purpose might not be mine, and mine might not be yours....how do we know RAs group doesnt have opinions...how do we know its all facts....same as Jesus and any other being who claimed many things....sure, they all teach a positive message....but the feeling I get is to take the positive, absorb it, but stay away from following DETAILED info from a source other then yourself. Some things that RA says really hit deep with me....but my inner voice says, this isnt what you need to focus on. So is my purpose SOOO different then others??

I find it so strange when people on here begen to post curious questions as they dabble in this ocean of info in this forum that people post qoutes from law of one. That is no different the the bible thumpers out there who try to read you a sripture from the bible to answer your troubles. The answers are within you. I feel that even in the most troubled time, DW himself will give those curious people the same advise. Seek your inner self, seek your higher self. We all are connected with the beyond 'here'....if you found this website, then you are a seeker...and your inner voice is probally ready to tell you things you are needing to know.....

I respect everyone and everyones rights to have faith in whatever gives them peace....so please, I ask those do the same for others.

I feel that the ones who ask for proof of RA might be those that are in the boat that their purpose is beyond RA or any book or any channel. Truly, some of us might be here and already know that we have been through what some of those here call the 4th deminsion....there are levels....depending on what level you are on...might depend on what info is going to feel right to you.

Always each to their own, and please forgive me if I offended anyone. That is never my intention...my intention is to share things. I share what I feel, for another might be in need of the same feeling.

To me, there is no such question that could be a 'test' question to prove anything 100%. If it feels right, go for it, if it doesnt feel right, it might not be for you. We can find answers, all by our selves!

Much love to all,
Lynette

[PeaceandLove]

there may be a possibility of looking for the answers that contain words that transcend Carla's vocabulary. It seems curious for a person to speak with words outside of their vocabulary, in context.

soup

[This is "shoplifedotus". . . I was told to change my username for obvious reasons! ;) ]

Great answer on this. I do recall reading somewhere that RA would use vocabulary that Carla did not even know. This would be the exact type of example that I was asking about. Good job!

I hope no one took this question the wrong way. . . . I mean, I KNOW there are plenty of examples like this! I just wanted to see if the people who were experts on the LoO could point them out.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing more.

- Mike

[Chris Hamilton]

From litlady:I have really had strong debates within myself on rather if I belong in this forum or not. The thing that pulls me back here ever time is Davids unbelievable understanding of the science of the Divine in everything there is. I have always felt science prooved God, God is the science of everything. That is why I came here and why I remain.

PLEASE understand, I am not debunking the RA stuff....but I feel like some here in the forum almost look at theirselves 'higher' to those that struggle with the acceptance of the material.

When David first started this forum back at Yahoo in 2000 as Asc2k, he was always quick to say how he based some of his theories on the Law of One material. The rules we have here discuss that a familiarity with David's material and the Law of One should be a prerequisite.

However, with DC forum's creation, he allowed more in the forum. We have many threads that a member can read and post. If someone isn't well-versed in the Law of One, there are 4 other threads an individual can post in. But, the Law of One thread is specifically for those who have read or are reading and have questions regarding specific passages in the books. We do not MAKE people read the books, but, at the same time, someone who wants to discuss whether the material is authentic or believeable or whatever, should have read the material so they aren't making statements that were never in the books in the first place. That is where the members may sound testy, because for someone to make a misstatement and attribute it to LoO, just creates more distortion. That's why LoO thread needs to have as undistorted discussion of the books as possible. I hope this helped. Chris

[MarkM]

It's natural for someone who hears of some 'audacious' claim, to desire proof; it's a natural response. I personally have been a pragmatic, scientifically minded person and tend to seek out natural, non-paranormal explanations for phenomena which at first glance may appear paranormal.

Many times Ra would decline to answer a question posed by Don, on the grounds that the answer would violate the law of confusion, otherwise known as the law of free will.

According to Ra, 3D humans are veiled from being confronted with incontrovertable truth of issues generally considered spiritual, as part of the purpose of setting up the 3D learning environment is to allow us to individually and collectively find illumination of the mystery of our existence for ourselves.

Orthodox science searches for understanding of the mysteries of the universe on the basis of life having arisen from the pre-existing universe, looking to materiality for the answers to life's riddles. Now, I feel this is a valid stage of learning, and within the parameters of the 3D experience, desirable for some.

The law of one seems to me to teach that the universe is a product of consciousness, but holds that for the individual, proof of this must come from within; as the concept of outer proof is looking through the telescope backwards, as it were. If the entirety of existence is One consciousness, and all material things are a distorted view of One consciousness, then the key to this knowledge would be in the direction of within, not without.

Here is something I posted some months ago, on the subject of proof:

I would suspect that for those who have begun to polarize on the path of service and are beginning to search in earnest for the truth, the work of David Wilcock and many others offers an invaluable tool, in that a great and wonderful opportunity is made available to them as they attempt to prove spiritual reality, or God, to themselves.

I recall Don Elkins telling of how he spoke to a materialized ghost who slapped him and Carla Rueckert hard on the arms, and then promptly walked right through them both with no sense of solidity. In that they had many such encounters, for them the burden of proof was carried.

He also made the point that in a roomful of sceptics these phenomena would never be percieved to an extent that left no room for the interpretation of trickery simply because "believing is seeing", as he put it.

The point is, such proof can never be universally shown to the masses, because the vast majority of humans here now are protected from this by the law of free will; each must discover the proof of spiritual reality for themselves.

My father is one who has longed for and anxiously awaits such proof from without; and as such will never find it until he finds it within. For him, every 'paranormal' phenomenon will always include a built-in caveat of 'rational' explainability, without exception. Only when it is found within (or perhaps if one desperately needs a kickstart to an already begun process of becoming) is there any possibility of outer proof.

When one begins to awaken to the purpose of the 3D sojourn and to the concept of One, they realize that the experience of partaking in this great pageant of learning and becoming this past 75,000 years has been it's own reward, and for it's own sake. The idea is not to think of it as something we need to get out of, at any cost. The densities were set up so that the Creator may experience it's creation. We're here, now, as individualized mini-versions of the Creator, to be here, now.

There could never rightfully be a church of Oneness, or a Oneness priesthoood. It would be utterly missing the point. Oneness is a realization that comes from within, an understanding that bypasses proofs or intellectual knowledge (the mind is strictly a tool for interfacing with the outer world) as one gains many lifetimes worth of experience. To attempt to persuade someone of Oneness misses the point, as well. One needs not to have any knowledge of Ra or even the concept of the Law of One in order to begin to inwardly find their loving connection to life. I recognized it when I heard it, as it resonated with something within already known.

Most on this Law of One forum merely seek to share their innate resonance with the overall message of Ra, regardless of where this material comes from. As such, this forum may act as a resource for those newcomers who similarly resonate.

Please note, these are my personal thoughts, offered for you to peruse and not meant to be construed as truth.

-Mark

[eyez4096]

hmmn. As someone with an applied math degree, I perpetually feel the desire for proof. Years of my life were devoted to learning how to construct and apply proofs. But I also learned with no uncertainty that to prove anything one must first assume something (not the thing you're attempting to prove!) to be true -- a definition or axiom. A small leap of "faith" may easily lead one to accept that absolutely nothing can be proven in an absolute sense.

The ability to doubt is something we should all be thankful for. When I open my eyes, I see certain things very clearly. There is a child, a book, a picture on the wall; but is that really a child, or a woman with unusual proportions? Is that a book, or a paper weight, or a serving tray with writing and pictures on it? Really, is that a picture or a window? Or perhaps it's just an opening in the wall? These doubts are easily overwhelmed by evidence which relies on definitions which, in perfect honesty, have no proof to offer for themselves.

The funny place this thought process takes you, is to recognize that proof is relative to a set of beliefs. If I believe that the physical world around us is "all there is" then you can be sure that, should I use this as one of my axioms to create proofs, I will never be able to prove that life exists outside of "all there is". It would be a logical contradiction, but only because my axiom, in this case, may be flawed. But things are more interesting than this; by subtly, and sometimes substantively, changing the sets of assumptions we hold with us we can in effect create for ourselves a totally "different" world. More importantly, every one of us is living in a _different_ mental-logically-created thought-verse which we call the one absolute reality. And so few of us are willing to accept that this is true: we can't prove it, so why should we accept it? ;)

So called skeptics are victims to their own paradigm, just as the mental patient is victim to its unstable and transient paradigm(s). Perhaps it's better to live in a world absent of proof since, as it seems, we can both prove and disprove anything. For me, and for now, accepting that something feels correct overwhelms my learned desire for concrete proof: too many things were "proven" to me in my physics classes, which smelled strangely of bovine feces yet were accepted as laws in the scientific community, for me to accept anyone's "proof" (or more importantly their assumptions) but my own internal "super-conscious" judgment. I would hope that you may begin to do the same.

-Charles

[twva]

What convinced me to accept the Ra material was its internal consistency. Over three years, a model of "life, the universe, and everything" was articulated with great subtlety and precision. In no case that I am aware of did something Ra said in one session contradict something they had said in an earlier session. Not only that, but when Don misunderstood or misrepresented what they had said, he was corrected.

If Carla had been just making it up I think it's almost inconceivable that she would not have contradicted herself or spouted gobbledygook at times.

Plus, I have heard the tapes. At the end of each session, Don calls Carla back into her body. When she answers (sometimes he has to call repeatedly) there is no question but that she is coming back from somewhere very far away and that she is very tired.

[yossarian]

Plus, I have heard the tapes.

Are these available anywhere to order/buy/download/whatever?

I'd love to hear the Ra Material audio..

[twva]

I'd love to hear the Ra Material audio..

I know it's been talked about but I'm not sure what the current status is. Try contacting LL Research (llresearch.org). Their store is store.bring4th.org, but I don't think the tapes are available there yet.

[SuperManny]

I know it's been talked about but I'm not sure what the current status is. Try contacting LL Research (llresearch.org). Their store is store.bring4th.org, but I don't think the tapes are available there yet.Yes, this is being discussed. The last I heard (and this is still in the planning stage, so it's constantly changing) they were planning to make the current Q'uo channelings available first, and then add to that as they were able to. These would be available for download at the store for 99¢ each, similar to the iTunes format.

This store is still somewhat in the planning stage, so if there is something you would like to see offered, please let them know. I'm sure the input would be appreciated.

[soup]

...Plus, I have heard the tapes. At the end of each session, Don calls Carla back into her body. When she answers (sometimes he has to call repeatedly) there is no question but that she is coming back from somewhere very far away and that she is very tired....


That's one of the coolest things I've learned about the Ra Materials in a long time...thanks for sharing. I feel very moved in reading that. Thanks again!


soup

[soup]

...If I were the questioner, I would make a point of asking many such questions, so as to ward of any debunkers....

I wonder abpout the importance of Ra "past" and the artifacts therof as compared to Ra "present." What evidence exists of Ra's present activity?


soup