Was Jesus wrong and the devil right?

[cosmiccell]

>In due respect, every single one of your questions or statements
below show your


ignorance of the Law of One Material. I would like to suggest that you
read


David's Ra Material Outline first and acquaint yourself with the
material and


then go to LL Research to read the full transcripts. There can be no
common


ground between you and this group if you don't know what we are
talking about,


period. Respectfully, Chris






Dear Chris,




before I dropped the first post, I studied thoroughly the "outline"
given in http://ascension2000.com/Ra-studyguide.htm and also DWà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s
Divine Cosmos http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/, which is the
most fascinating metaphysial overview I have come across so far
(besides Stan TenenÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´s fundamental work ? www.meru.org - to which DW
often refers). Quote: "This study guide gives a _wonderful overview_
of the _main philosophies_, concepts and practices of the Law of One,
predominantly through excerpts."




Having done my "homework", I am asking you as an "oldie" to please
elaborate on some of Raà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s excerpts, which are not fully clear to me:




Question 1:




"There is a center to infinity. From this center all spreads.
Therefore there are centers to the creation, to the galaxies, to star
systems, to planetary systems and to consciousness. (B4, 63)" (http:
//ascension2000.com/Ra-section2.htm )




Means: The center is the origin, the 8th density ? as it is closest to
the origin ? should start right around that center, the 1st density
(dimension) should be at the periphery. How does that fit with DWà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s
out of body experience, where he experienced higher dimensions as
being _upwards_ (further away) from the Earth?




"One of the author's most fascinating observations early along came
when he tried to fly away from the Earth and go into "outer space"
while in an out-of-body experience. From this, he eventually realized
that the Earth had an onion-like structure of spherical "planes"
surrounding itself. ?. After a certain distance of traveling upwards
from the Earth in an out-of-body state, Wilcock would pop through a
"layer" of energy and a new surface would appear beneath him ?
Punching through an even higher level, he suddenly found himself
literally standing inside of what appeared to be an extraterrestrial
spacecraft." ( http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/00.htm )






Question 2:




"RA: Love may be seen as the type of energy of an extremely high order
which causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential of
intelligent infinity in a particular way. All love emanates from the
Oneness. (B2, 8)"


(http://ascension2000.com/Ra-section2.htm)




I am not sure what this says more than Love causing "forming of
energy" and emanating from "Oneness"? What is the meaning of love to
human life? What is the practical output?






Question 3:




"THE FOCUSING OF FREE WILL YIELDS LOVE


RA: The 1st distortion, free will, finds a focus which is known to
you as logos, the Creative Principle or love. This focus may be called
the 2nd distortion. (B1, 148)


RA: The second distortion is the distortion of love. (B2, 7-8) "




To consider Love as being a "distortion" ? how does that help you
further in your own philosophy and in daily life?






Question 4:




"B. LOVE SEEKS TO KNOW ITSELF


RA: The distortion love is the great activator and primal co-Creator
of various creations using intelligent infinity. (B2, 8)... Love uses
Its intelligent energy to create a certain pattern of illusions or
densities in order to satisfy Its own intelligent estimate of a method
of knowing itself. (B2, 9)"




What is "satisfying an estimate of a method of knowing itself"? What
does this last sentence mean in practical terms?






Question 5:




"RA: EACH ENTITY (MIND/BODY/SPIRIT COMPLEX) IS A UNIQUE PORTION OF
THE ONE CREATOR. (B2, 22)"




So, the entity ? as being individual (unique) - is a "fractal image"
(portion) of the creator. How can it then be, that the creator has no
similar _individuality_, which would be in accordance with Hermetic
Law? (remember: the Vedas say that Monism "all is one" is only 50% of
the truth, and that God has ALSO an _individuality_).






Question 6:




"RA: The universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven,
... (B1, 66)"




What is the use of a statement, when it is completely relativized in
the same sentence ("has yet to be proven or disproven"), leaving
everything open to interpretation?






Question 7:




"THERE IS NO REAL (OR ETERNAL) POLARITY


RA: In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all
will be reconciled at some point in your dance through the
mind/body/spirit complex with which you amuse yourself. This belief in
polarity is chosen instead of understanding the complete unity of
thought that binds all things together."




This is a straight forward definition of Monism. "The One" doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t
love good more than evil, right? But is it really unimportant, whether
we do right or wrong? When we donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t need God and when there is no
Wrong ? then Hitler didnÃà‚‚Â ´t do any wrong, right? So, the concentration
camps, cold murder, utter bestiality ? suddenly everything is as well
"right" as "wrong"!




How can this indifference be a guidline for developing human values?




"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and
sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt
fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee
hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and him only shalt thou serve. 11 Then the devil leaveth him, and,
behold, angels came and ministered unto him.


(Mt 4,10)."




Was Jesus wrong and the devil right?




Regards,


Cosmiccell

[Tobey Wheelock]

Thanks for addressing some specific quotes from the Law of One material.
I will try my hand at responding to a few of your questions; I'm sure
others will, too.

On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 10:31:40PM -0000, cosmiccell wrote:
> Question 3:
> To consider Love as being a "distortion" ? how does that help you
> further in your own philosophy and in daily life?

I think you may be (understandably) confused by the distinction between
love as second distortion and love as vibration. Perhaps this extract
from book 2, session 27 will help:
Q: Is there a manifestation of love that we could call vibration?
A: I am Ra. Again we reach semantic difficulties. The vibration
or density of love or understanding is not a term used in the
same sense as the second distortion, Love; the distortion Love
being the great activator and primal co-Creator of various
creations using intelligent infinity; the vibration love being
that density in which those who have learned to do an activity
called "loving" without significant distortion, then seek the
ways of light or wisdom....


> Question 4:
> "B. LOVE SEEKS TO KNOW ITSELF
> RA: ... Love uses Its intelligent energy to create a certain pattern
> of illusions or densities in order to satisfy Its own intelligent
> estimate of a method of knowing itself. (B2, 9)"
>
> What does this last sentence mean in practical terms?

It means that a Logos (Love in the second distortion sense) creates a
galaxy with the set of natural laws that in its estimation will give the
mind/body/spirit complexes that incarnate there its best guess as to a
means to know the one infinite Creator.


> Question 7:
> "THERE IS NO REAL (OR ETERNAL) POLARITY
> RA: In truth there is no right or wrong....
>
> How can this indifference be a guidline for developing human values?

Here's one way (Book 1, Session 4):
One of the primal distortions of the Law of One is that of
healing. Healing occurs when a mind/body/spirit complex
realizes, deep within itself, the Law of One; that is, that
there is no disharmony, no imperfection; that all is complete
and whole and perfect. Thus, the intelligent infinity within
this mind/body/spirit complex re-forms the illusion of body,
mind, or spirit to a form congruent with the Law of One. The
healer acts as energizer or catalyst for this completely
individual process.


Peace, love (in the vibratory sense!), and light,
Tobey Wheelock

[Jeremy Weiland]

> before I dropped the first post, I studied
> thoroughly the "outline" given in
> http://ascension2000.com/Ra-studyguide.htm and also
> DWà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s Divine Cosmos
> http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/, which is the
> most fascinating metaphysial overview I have come
> across so far (besides Stan TenenÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´s fundamental
> work ? www.meru.org - to which DW often refers).
> Quote: "This study guide gives a _wonderful
> overview_ of the _main philosophies_, concepts and
> practices of the Law of One, predominantly through
> excerpts."

That's great, I'm glad you're familiarizing yourself
with the material. None of completely understand the
Law of One teachings, and we all have questions from
time to time.

However, the study guide is an *overview*, not the
work itself. I wouldn't even characterize the Law of
One channelings as exhaustive in their coverage of the
concepts they discuss. It is natural to seek answers
to the questions you pose, but there is also an air of
mystery surrounding any comprehensive understanding
and integration of the ideas.

What I mean is, we are not experts - and we don't have
definitive answers for you. As I touched on before,
we have little need for definitive, black and white
answers, as this forum is designed to be a place where
we can share our experiences and understandings. We
are not here to conform to any dogmatic or set in
stone approach. All we ask is a reasonable interest
in the material and a good faith sense of proportion
in the seeking as a matter of maintaining a common
purpose as a group. Nothing will be proven here, you
understand. :-)

Having said that, I feel freed to share with you what
is *my personal* approach to this material. Of
course, you aren't required to accept it, but that's
not in any way necessary anyway.

> Means: The center is the origin, the 8th density ?
> as it is closest to the origin ? should start right
> around that center, the 1st density (dimension)
> should be at the periphery. How does that fit with
> DWà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s out of body experience, where he experienced
> higher dimensions as being _upwards_ (further away)
> from the Earth?

I would simply chalk that up to two things: confines
of thinking and language, and subjective experience.
It's like the story of the Sphere who visits the two
dimensional triangle who's whole world is a plane.
The triangle only understands width and depth, not
height. When the sphere moves up and down through the
plane, all the triangle sees is a circle growing and
shrinking.

Similarly, in the veiled, 3D experience, it's
difficult to work directly with higher experiences.
They are not per se scientific, empirical endeavors,
but rather highly subjective. We may be able to
explain certain aspects via models, but these models
don't take things like extra dimensions and subtlties
of existence into account. In short, I would not be
inclined to use David's characterization of a
subjective experience as any sort of proof of a
scientific model. "Up" and "in" are just two
shorthand ways of trying to tackle the concept of
interdensity or interdimensional motion, both of which
don't have their own prepositions yet. :-)

> I am not sure what this says more than Love causing
> "forming of energy" and emanating from "Oneness"?
> What is the meaning of love to human life? What is
> the practical output?

A closer reading of the original material might have
been useful on this question. From my study of said
material, I would say love is the force of oneness, a
projection of the truth of our oneness onto the
illusion of separation and individuality. When we
"love" we affirm that we are one. Because this
reflects a higher truth than the everyday truth of
individuality, we seek it - sometimes in distorted
ways, but it is the fundamental reality that we
acknowledge, being the one infinite Creator ourselves,
each of us.

> To consider Love as being a "distortion" ? how does
> that help you further in your own philosophy and in
> daily life?

Any understanding of any concept is relative to a
person's concept of identity. In other words, what
"that" is, whatever it is, be it a lamp, chair,
person, whatever, can't be grasped until I have
decided what *I* am. If I accept that I am one with
my surroundings, and that seeming differences are in
truth transient, then I realize that every experience
I have that does not yield conscious, peaceful
experience of unity is not the truest example of
reality.

As I said earlier, love as we individuals know it, can
be understood as a potential between intelligent
infinity - the unmanifested, unified Creator - and
intelligent energy - the manifested creation. I like
to look at it as a projection of unity onto
separation. In other words, because we fail to
percieve our abiding union with all else in Creation,
we experience something called "love" between two
segements of the Creator/creation. It is a
distortion, but distortion is a matter of perception,
not of reality.

> Question 4:
>
>
>
>
> "B. LOVE SEEKS TO KNOW ITSELF
>
>
> RA: The distortion love is the great activator and
> primal co-Creator
> of various creations using intelligent infinity.
> (B2, 8)... Love uses
> Its intelligent energy to create a certain pattern
> of illusions or
> densities in order to satisfy Its own intelligent
> estimate of a method
> of knowing itself. (B2, 9)"
>
>
>
>
> What is "satisfying an estimate of a method of
> knowing itself"? What does this last sentence mean
> in practical terms?

The specific creation we experience is one way the
unified Creator seeks to know itself. It is one of
the fundamental mysteries of the universe! Sorry, I
have little to add on that one - it still boggles my
mind...

> So, the entity ? as being individual (unique) - is a
> "fractal image" (portion) of the creator.

That's more or less my understanding. We are the
creator in microcosm, in a particular subsection of
reality.

> How can it then be, that the creator has no similar
> _individuality_, which would be in accordance with
> Hermetic Law? (remember: the Vedas say that
> Monism "all is one" is only 50% of the truth, and
> that God has ALSO an _individuality_).

No offense, but I couldn't care less what the Vedas
say! :-) I'm also not familiar with Hermetic Law, so
I don't know at what you're getting. I see no reason
to accept the assertions you mention based soley on an
authority I do not recognize. If you want to try to
integrate the Law of One philosophy with other
metaphysical approaches, that's your perrogative, but
that seems like an individual task best suited to
personal endeavor.

IMHO, the fundamental reality of the creator is unity,
infinite singularity. Our experience of individuality
and separation is an alternative to the experience of
this unity, a distortion of reality. That we exist as
a "fractal image" doesn't change the fact that there
is a source for that image, it just means that the
image has a subset of qualities embodied by the
source.

> "RA: The universe is infinite. This has yet to be
> proven or disproven,
> ... (B1, 66)"
> What is the use of a statement, when it is
> completely relativized in the same sentence ("has
> yet to be proven or disproven"), leaving everything
> open to interpretation?

I think you took that quote out of the necessary
context, which is:

"RA: The universe is infinite. This has yet to be
proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there
is no end to your selves, of your journey of seeking
or your perceptions of the creations. (B1, 66)"

Ra was talking about our attempts to prove or disprove
the infinity of creation. Obviously, their position
is that the universe is infinite. Ra only wishes to
expound on their view of reality from their
perspective. If one shares their fundamental view of
unity in creation, then one may find their words
helpful - however, if you read the original material,
you will find that they do not offer proof of any
kind. The utility of the information they share is in
its "ring of truth" with that reality that is already
inside of us. IMHO.

The bottom line is that everything *is* open to
interpretation. Our experience is one in which we
encounter many things, the significance of which is
only defined by our point of view and relative values
we hold. If you don't share this point of view, then
I do not find it difficult to believe that you don't
see the use of such a statement. I must admit,
however, that it's rather dishonest to take the
thought out of context and then argue against it's
usefulness.

> RA: In truth there is no right or wrong. There is
> no polarity for all will be reconciled at some point

> in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex
> with which you amuse yourself. This belief in
> polarity is chosen instead of understanding the
> complete unity of thought that binds all things
> together."
> This is a straight forward definition of Monism.
> "The One" doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t love good more than evil, right?

Good and evil are really slippery terms. There is
polarity, and it does have utility in the evolution of
the soul, and both paths of experience are open to the
individual. One path happens to be much more
harmonious than the other, but an individual does have
choice on which path to take. I don't believe that
the one Creator loves an sts entity less than an sto
entity because the Creator *is* both. One is just
more distorted, or differently distorted, than the
other, and they are both irreplacable parts of the
infinite unified creation/Creator.

> But is it really unimportant, whether we do right or

> wrong?

I would not say that. I would simply say that, from
the unified perspective, there is no prohibition on
one path or the other. To put it another way: God is
not judging us, only we are. It is from our limited
perspective that the polarities exist and have
usefulness, because it is at our level that a
meaningful choice exists.

> When we donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t need God and when there is no Wrong ?
> then Hitler didnÃà‚‚Â ´t do any wrong, right? So, the
> concentration camps, cold murder, utter bestiality ?

> suddenly everything is as well "right" as "wrong"!

Whoa - rein it in there! "Wrong" definately has a
meaning in our world, no doubt about that. And there
are things that are pretty universally seen to be
negative, no question. But at the level of unity, how
can there be wrong if there is no "otherself" to
wrong, if all is self? What I think Ra means is that
right and wrong manifest at the level of individuality
but not at the level of unity. They are meaningless
terms when all is one and self.

The Law of One simply says that, in reality, all is
one. Hitler is a part of that oneness just like
everybody else. He may choose not to acknowledge that
fact and act in ways that are contrary to that
reality, but he cannot change reality.

> How can this indifference be a guidline for
> developing human values?

You *really* think people develop certain values
because they believe "God wants them to?"

I don't think it's Ra's intent whatsoever to develop
human values. I think Ra intends to give people a
sense of the infinity of creation, to open one's mind
to a greater reality, and (most importantly) to open
up to the reality of the inner, spiritual life. There
are some ideas that (for me) instill a feeling that
there is an order to life where there once seemed
chaos, but I really don't base any fundamental, real
world values on the teachings of Ra. Rather, it seems
to me that I try to understand my real world values in
the context of the perspective Ra attempts to
describe.

> Was Jesus wrong and the devil right?

IMHO, right or wrong isn't an applicable idea *from
Ra's perspective*. Both polarities are acceptable
paths to the creator from the viewpoint of unity.
From your perspective, there probably is one path you
would think of as "right" and one as "wrong" - but
that's in your personal context of 3D experience and
the feelings and motivations that accompany that.

Try to understand, there are no hard and fast answers
to these questions. What draws us (at least me) to
this material is the underlying message of Ra, which
is the unity of creation that one feels and sees in
such a limited form here in 3D. The goal is to get in
touch with the inner sense of truth, not the
dictations of any entity on written page.

Similarly, these questions are answered best by the
individual in his or her own time. Don't expect
instant gratification, for that's a foreign concept
when studying anything related to Ra. :-)

Love and light,

Jeremy

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

[shemayet_3]

Good Evening Cosmic, Group :) L~&~L

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=3gWMTUC280ErhmyOlE7chMzqhI2R9g41pOO7sO DxNTqLac9zu91AyJVi_hGEqeTqbUlnaDFl_KAFTHg), "cosmiccell" <minema@g...> wrote:

>>>Question 1:

"There is a center to infinity. From this center all spreads.
Therefore there are centers to the creation, to the galaxies, to star
systems, to planetary systems and to consciousness. (B4, 63)"
(http://ascension2000.com/Ra-section2.htm )

"One of the author's most fascinating observations early along came
when he tried to fly away from the Earth and go into "outer space"
while in an out-of-body experience. From this, he eventually realized
that the Earth had an onion-like structure of spherical "planes"
surrounding itself." ..."After a certain distance of traveling
upwards from the Earth in an out-of-body state, Wilcock would pop
through a "layer" of energy and a new surface would appear beneath
him ? Punching through an even higher level, he suddenly found
himself literally standing inside of what appeared to be an
extraterrestrial spacecraft."
(http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/00.htm )

Means: The center is the origin, the 8th density ? as it is
closest to the origin ? should start right around that center,
the 1st density (dimension) should be at the periphery. How does that
fit with DWà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s out of body experience, where he experienced higher
dimensions as being _upwards_ (further away) from the Earth?<<<

Me: Well, to be fair. David never specified, whether the first level
he went through, was indeed the "1st Density". So this quote is
really irrelevant, but more specifically because, each density "also"
has 8 density's. So, there's a double standard. He was but he also
was not. RA would not allow for a "specific" designation for things
of this nature, if I remeber correctly.

>>>Question 2:

"RA: Love may be seen as the type of energy of an extremely high
order which causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential
of intelligent infinity in a particular way. All love emanates from
the Oneness. (B2, 8)" (http://ascension2000.com/Ra-section2.htm)

I am not sure what this says more than Love causing "forming of
energy" and emanating from "Oneness"? What is the meaning of love to
human life? What is the practical output?<<<

Me: Motivation?

>>>Question 3:

"THE FOCUSING OF FREE WILL YIELDS LOVE

RA: The 1st distortion, free will, finds a focus which is known to
you as logos, the Creative Principle or love. This focus may be
called the 2nd distortion. (B1, 148)

RA: The second distortion is the distortion of love. (B2, 7-8) "

To consider Love as being a "distortion" ? how does that help you
further in your own philosophy and in daily life?<<<

Me: Well, in order to access intelligent infinity, (Creator) you must
accomplish it through a series of steps/distortions, and the way they
are used in daily life isn't the question, the question should
be, "Would there be life without the distortion/co-creation of Love?"

Awareness - You are created

Growth - You become aware of the world around you

self-awareness - You become aware of yourself

Love/Understanding - You learn to Love yourself, hence because you
Love yourself as human, you understand what it must be, to be someone
else that is human, and in turn give that Love to them.

Light/Wisdom - You realise that Love, is the key to all awareness.

Light/Love, Love/light / Unity - You become One with everything, as
yourself.

The Gateway Cycle/Sacramental Nature of All things - You realise you
ARE The Creator/God/dess.

The importance being that without Love, their is no motivation,
without motivation, you don't co-create, with no creation, their is
no life.

>>>Question 4:

LOVE SEEKS TO KNOW ITSELF

RA: The distortion love is the great activator and primal co-Creator
of various creations using intelligent infinity. (B2, 8)

... Love uses Its intelligent energy to create a certain pattern of
illusions or densities in order to satisfy Its own intelligent
estimate of a method of knowing itself. (B2, 9)"

What is "satisfying an estimate of a method of knowing itself"? What
does this last sentence mean in practical terms?<<<

Me: Bascially, IMHO, it says that not only was the first fractal (The
Creator) creating universes, by way of Love, but now there was
another fractal that was creating through it's own free-will by way
of love, universe's of ITS own. Each one individually knowing itself,
apart from the other, by Its own METHOD. Of course it's all an
illusion, because every fractals beginning starts with the One
interconnected with its parts, and when broken down, all look exactly
the same, therefore making us all "ONE".

To put this phrase to use in a practical way, I suppose, you would
start by accepting the concept of "free-will" to create, but it can
only be done, through Love. If you want to "Change the World" the
only way you can do it, is with the creating powers of LOVE. :)

>>>Question 5:

"RA: EACH ENTITY (MIND/BODY/SPIRIT COMPLEX) IS A UNIQUE PORTION OF
THE ONE CREATOR. (B2, 22)"

So, the entity ? as being individual (unique) - is a "fractal
image"
(portion) of the creator. How can it then be, that the creator has no
similar _individuality_, which would be in accordance with Hermetic
Law? (remember: the Vedas say that Monism "all is one" is only 50% of
the truth, and that God has ALSO an _individuality_).<<<

Me: All the parts, equal the whole. The Creator's individuality is
only expressed through it's creations. How can you be an "individual"
if you are, all that is?

>>>Question 6:

"RA: The universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or
disproven,... (B1, 66)

What is the use of a statement, when it is completely relativized in
the same sentence ("has yet to be proven or disproven"), leaving
everything open to interpretation?<<<

Me: All they were saying was that they (RA) didn't know because they
had yet to see the end of it, so they couldn't answer them with a
definite answer. But the rest of the answer that you left out had
merit...

RA: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite.
This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that
there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would
call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

...IMO, they were trying to reassure them that there was no "end" to
any of us. That death did not exist.

>>>Question 7:

"THERE IS NO REAL (OR ETERNAL) POLARITY

RA: In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for
all will be reconciled at some point in your dance through the
mind/body/spirit complex with which you amuse yourself. This belief
in polarity is chosen instead of understanding the complete unity of
thought that binds all things together."

This is a straight forward definition of Monism. "The One" doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t
love good more than evil, right? But is it really unimportant,
whether we do right or wrong? When we donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t need God and when
there
is no Wrong ? then Hitler didnÃà‚‚Â ´t do any wrong, right? So, the
concentration camps, cold murder, utter bestiality ? suddenly
everything is as well "right" as "wrong"! How can this indifference
be a guidline for developing human values?<<<

Me: No, it meant that all that is the opposite of Love, is also an
expression of The Creator. If he condemned them, he would be
condemning himself. That is ALL it is saying. Polarity was the only
way for The Creator to know itself, and it's potential. Do you think
that, which we call evil, is evil in it's own eyes, or in the eye's
of The Creator? No, but WE don't have to like it, because we are NOT
it's creator's, so we just don't Understand/Love them as much. But we
should!! They ARE US!! If we forsake them, we forsake ourselves AND
The Creator.

By the way, it does get annoying when you keep trying to say that the
L.O.O. is actually the Vedic in disguise, we could say the same thing
about the Vedic.

>>>"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain,
and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt
fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee
hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and him only shalt thou serve. 11 Then the devil leaveth him, and,
behold, angels came and ministered unto him.(Mt 4,10)."

Was Jesus wrong and the devil right?<<<

Me: Actually, without the devil, Jesus is redundant, and vice-versa.
They were both right and they were both wrong! ~LOL~ :)

Namaste

Shemayet~*

[Chris Hamilton]

Comiccell said: before I dropped the first post, I studied thoroughly the
"outline"

Chris: Ah, now we can get on some common ground:) Thanks

Comiccell: Having done my "homework", I am asking you as an "oldie" to
please elaborate on some of Raà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s excerpts, which are not fully clear to me:

Chris: Uh, oh. How did you know I was an"oldie"? Oh, you meant on the site
:) How long I have been here, yes :) <g>

CC: The center is the origin, the 8th density - as it is closest to
the origin - should start right around that center, the 1st density
(dimension) should be at the periphery. How does that fit with DWà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s
out of body experience, where he experienced higher dimensions as
being _upwards_ (further away) from the Earth?

Chris: Now, I think that Jeremy answered all of the questions so wonderfully
(as usual), but one extra comment here I would like to make is that your
analogy of the the circle is very much a part of the Ra definition of
infinity. With the circle, we have endlessness, it recycles always. David's
experience, as Jeremy said, was based upon his perception from 3rd density,
and our communication in 3rd density is limited to what we can write to
each other, our extent and utilization of our linguistic knowledge. So,
David's experiences should not be put into the same category as Ra's
information. They are apples and oranges is all. Ra is from 6th density,
David's responsemay be colored by a 3rd density body/mind.

"RA: Love may be seen as the type of energy of an extremely high order
which causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential of
intelligent infinity in a particular way. All love emanates from the
Oneness. (B2, 8
I am not sure what this says more than Love causing "forming of
energy" and emanating from "Oneness"? What is the meaning of love to
human life? What is the practical output?

Chris: This is tough...look to Jeremy's answer too (which he says we are
seeking One by looking at love with another). First, the Ra answer isn't
necessarily discussing love between 3D individuals. I see here a larger,
fractal-type explanation, CC (of course, being fractal, it can go
everywhere:). Intelligent infinity (formlessness designed into form as
potential) has had a specific catalyst that produces the vibration of love.
This may be definable thru David's work..I am not really that technical of a
person to say that in certainty, just using my intuition:) SOoooo:) We jump
to your question of the meaning of love to the human heart.....first, we go
fractal-if the vibration is occuring 'out there', why not 'in here'? There
really is no difference between 'in here or out' to Ra, so, it is all part
of the circle, One.The practical output, of course, in 3D, is the knowing
that we can all depend upon each other because we are all in the circle.
Love naturally vibrates when we realize our togetherness.

CC: To consider Love as being a "distortion" - how does that help you
further in your own philosophy and in daily life?

Chris: To Ra's viewpoint, everything beyond intelligent infinity (if I am
wrong here, Jer can correct:), is a distortion. I know, it makes you want to
think it is something undesirable, at least from my perspective, as I always
associate 'distortion' with some kind of fault:) But this isn't what Ra
means. He means it more as a stone being thrown in a pond and the resulting
waves create a distortion of the original picture. Distortions are simply
different vibrations that interact with the original big vibe (God, Craetor,
whatever you call it:).

RA: Love uses Its intelligent energy to create a certain pattern of
illusions or densities in order to satisfy Its own intelligent estimate of a
method of knowing itself. (B2, 9)"
CC:What is "satisfying an estimate of a method of knowing itself"? What does
this last sentence mean in practical terms?

Chris: Jeremy went ooo too:) The Creator developed many things, the first
was free will, so It utilized this to experience the second distortion of
Love. This is a question that we as humans will always quandry- Intelligent
energy wants to know itself better? Wait! Shouldn't intelligent energy
*know* itself already? Good question CC :) One of the mysteries.

CC: So, the entity - as being individual (unique) - is a "fractal image"
(portion) of the creator. How can it then be, that the creator has no
similar _individuality_, which would be in accordance with Hermetic
Law?

Chris: Because, and admittedly I am no expert just intuitive:), that we are
all part of the whole, the one, there is no separation, so the creator
experiences our individuality and our separateness too even tho there is
only One. Individuality is the experience of 3rd density and, the creator
being one part of us can know this also.

CC: "The One" doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t love good more than evil, right? But is it really
unimportant, whether we do right or wrong? When we donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t need God and when
there is no Wrong - then Hitler didnÃà‚‚Â ´t do any wrong, right? So, the
concentration camps, cold murder, utter bestiality - suddenly everything is
as well "right" as "wrong"!

Chris: Ya know, this isn't a nutsy question at all, not at all CC. When I
was first exposed to the Ra Material, it was heiroglyphics, literally :) I
thought, 'what are you talking about'? 'Evil is evil!' Hitler was a schmuck!
Anyway, Ra sees from a 6th density unity perspective-we, on the other hand
see from a separated individualistic perspective. We can't help it, it's
just our 3D state:). And, from our perspective, we see an individual who has
used and killed millions. It is natural for us to make a judgement, create
an emotional response and react. Ra, however, has love and wisdom
experience, sees unity, and has no veil, soooo :) Well, Ra is just trying to
help, doesn't mean we will listen.

CC: Was Jesus wrong and the devil right?

Chris: Smile, that's what we are still trying to figure out in 3D, don't you
think? Will spirituality or ego win? Great questions CC. And, thank you
Jeremy for your response when I was working and couldn't answer. In Love and
Light, Chris

[darktemplarssj]

hey cosmic cell. I was in a somewhat similar position to you a few
monthes ago, the exception is that I am still young(20 yrs old) and
haven't had the depth of manifold religious experiences that you
seem to have had. It seems what you are in need of is what is
generally called balance here.

The problem with seeing some others as negative or evil which I had
faced for a time is that this generates vengeful negative feelings
within the self. It is the viscious cycle of the world. I feel
from personal experience that being in close contact to some of
these negative ideas with limn(means outline) the gradient between
the positive/negative and strengthin understanding of the positive
inside the experiencer. I was at first appauled by what we would
call "negative" or "evil" ideas, but strangely as I slowly pushed my
understanding into balance I found that I could retain my positive
position of love twords others , even those of negative qualities
while realizing when to back off and leave them to their self-
distructive ways. This is what I call the lensing of ideas through
both logic and polarity. IMO both need to be present. This is
referenced by Ra as well, he speaks of love without wisdom and love
with wisdom.

If you have seen the third matrix movie you might have some
concept of this. Neo could be seen as a positive aspect and Agent
Smith as the negative. The only possible resolution of this eternal
fight and anger was to absorb the other being or in our case accept
the negative self. When you can truely do this you will see that
there is much less conflict in your life and you will be more at
peace. This is the concept of the yin and the yang. But when both
disolve at the arrant(highest) levels of conciousness we find unity
to be the resulting equation.

I went through the following phases in my understanding
(presented for your personal comparison/contrast)

Innocence/Belief in what I was told -> Exploration and personal
introspection on religion -> Strong asscociation with a belief
system and defending it fervently -> Attempting to talk from a equal
stance to give credance to both my point of view and my debaitor's
point of view -> to where I am now , now I mostly just asscociate
with those who have developed similar opinions on their own I have
to a great degree refrained from pushing my ideas onto others. I
think this is a product of discression and understanding more deeply
that some people have certain ideals that it would cause them pains
to loose(thus the lensing that I spoke of above).

One of the most useful quotes I have ever heard I apply alot to
my current position in things. "All things will pass". I will say
this to myself when I feel doughtful or mad or anxious. When I hear
someone who disagrees with my spiritually or otherwise I think to
myself something along the lines of: I'm pretty sure that I am
right, but what good will debaiting really do about it if the person
is so fervently deadset, I think about how all things will pass and
how the truth WILL reveal itself eventually weather we die and
vanish into oblivion or weather our resonant spiritual body expands
into a greater universe. I will often say this to myself when
someone says something that strongly conflicts with my ideas and I
want to adress the situation from the most logical position. I
believe it is one of the most definitive arguments I have ever come
across, just letting time decide, so to speak. This is one of the
many things I have used to balance the logic element with the
polarity element.

If you are open enough to the concept I think you would benefit much
from meditation on the energy rays described by Ra they indeed seem
to be real, or as real as distortions caused in conciousness by
meditation.

And while speaking on this order let me note something that has
been of invaluble aid to me lately. I read on another webpage a
very good definition of religion. The writer spoke that Religion
was self-prooving. Meditation and introspection are experiences
that are totally seperate from the real physical world. I pratice
telekinesis fairly often, and I ask myself, did I really move that?
even when I become accustomed to it I sometimes ask the question
still because of my continuing disbelief and astonishment in the
world we live in. Well then I ask myself "In what context am even
asking the question?" I ask myself first if I believe it happened
in my mind, and also if I believe it happened in real life, is there
really a distinction? This is one part of my realization that
religion and spiritualism is a definitive part of our reality. This
allowed me/enthused me the drive to pursue purer religious ideals.
Those ideals in turn will lead to higher ones yet and it will be a
self reinforcing cycle.

I hope this is helpful. Please excuse the disorganized post, it is
difficult enough to put true emotional understanding into words let
alone organize it. Also everyone else who reads this besides cosmic
cell please note that I am simply canvassing(displaying) the path
that my spiritual growth has taken on and any crass representations
of ideas/concepts are a product of difficulty in conveying deeply
meditated ideas(I.E. if anything didn't sound very positively
oriented it is because I am trying adress it more from a logical
standpoint).
-Dave aka DMW