[V8V8V8]

i read somewhere that a 'bunch of grapes' were long ago known as the divine life force or the juice of the gods. ive seen pictures of christ on the cross and 2 men carrying a large bundle of grapes in front of him.

ive read many other stories that talk about this juice of the gods. immortals needed this when in the realm of earth. does this ring a bell to anyone? ive read about the star seed that humans used to consume. some of those stories were not for those with a light stomach. they talked of the star seed actually being a goddesses menstrual blood. ok ok i know, very taboo subject to some.

so how many people here believe the immortals once walked here with us? and if they did, do you think they needed to consume some sort of fruit of unknown star seed to keep their immortality? or even more crazy, mabey man once was able to know this fountain of youth so to say.

it seems to me there is some truth to the stories of gods here on earth. but in my opinion, they were angels, with the power to co-create. sooooo-this leads to another question-could our high selves be angles? are we here as a part of their accident or their fall? are we here to not only ascend our own souls but also amend past chaos that the angels are presently paying for through being stuck here until we as humans can unite?

its late, and i like to ramble when im tired-just curiosities running through my mind

peace to all,
lynette

[arreskslarlig]

i read somewhere that a 'bunch of grapes' were long ago known as the divine life force or the juice of the gods. ive seen pictures of christ on the cross and 2 men carrying a large bundle of grapes in front of him.

grapes are certainly a good fruit. one of the cancer cures involves taking in only grapes for weeks. the alchemists believed that each category had its perfected form. so gold was the perfection among metals, and grapes were the perfection of fruit.

ive read many other stories that talk about this juice of the gods. immortals needed this when in the realm of earth. does this ring a bell to anyone? ive read about the star seed that humans used to consume.

yes, there are several hints about this in various places. it is quite possible that the annunaki had discovered a way to maintain their longevity - i will not say immortality. but i think it was not really a juice necessarily. you might be confusing it with soma - the nectar of the gods which i think was probably a mixture of psychoactive plants. this substance would have been the reason that hermes (another annunaki) is the founder of alchemy, and the substance, also known as the philosophers stone, brings things to their natural perfection, and so when ingested restores health.

some of those stories were not for those with a light stomach. they talked of the star seed actually being a goddesses menstrual blood. ok ok i know, very taboo subject to some.

when i considered what a misanthropist jehovah was, i began to wonder if maybe menstrual blood wasn't something positively good that he wanted to keep the people from. all he really wanted was canon fodder and abject obedience.
perhaps the drinking of menstrual blood might confer some health, but would probably not be powerful enough for what you have in mind. rather, to make the philosopher's stone, the alchemist finds the way to greatly multiply the power of some substance which contains life force. menstrual blood certainly has life force, if, as the bible says, the "life is in the blood" and menstrual blood is a unique form of human blood. has many interesting properties.

it seems to me there is some truth to the stories of gods here on earth. but in my opinion, they were angels, with the power to co-create.

in my opinion they were ets, with a lot of scientific knowledge. not angels in the way you're thinking. the origin of the idea of angels comes from ets, annunaki.

[V8V8V8]

hi again onething

so how do we know though, that the annunaki themselves dont have a 'higherself' that could be a angelic being? i am one who feels there is only one source for all life. even though there might be a negative leading other negatives, can we not still say that even all negative origins truly fall back to this same source as well?

i know we cant figure it all our for sure, but i find this kind of stuff so interesting.

there are so many divisions from the seperation they seem to be almost infinent. but somehow i feel every single division will reunite to what it divided from. just ideas...

lynette

[arreskslarlig]

hello littlelady

sometimes i feel that you use the word feel when you mean 'think.' be bold! tell us what you think not just what you feel.

of course the annunaki would have a higher self. of course there is only one source to life.

you were talking about ancient history, and accounts of beings who partook of some sort of substance to make them live long. the higher self is not the one who dies. it is the body that dies. when a body dies, the mind-body-spirit complex has to break up and reconfigure. get a new body and go through the forgetting.

personally, i think our lives are much too short. i think that is half the problem with the human race - we are not able to acquire sufficient wisdom in the extremely short span of our lives. we are fearful and pressured to do everything before we are ready, and lose strength just as we are beginning to grow up.

you equate the higher self with angels. i don't. but i don't have a good feel for the higher self idea. i think of angels as individuals. i have a soul, but i am not an angel. i don't think of my higher self as my soul, either. i don't know what it is.

[XU8i6ysK]

starseed? gosh, don't or you'll have me wondering about the "reptilians" again. :d

in an interview i saw recently, a shaman talked about a form of psychic vampirism (which i don't want to go into) as being the secret occult method of extending one's life .

however, i think the less corrupted method of extending the life-force has got to do with mind over matter, using the power of one's mind to rejuvenate the body's cells. and also cleansing oneself of negative emotions; learning to understand and therefore forgive. including ourselves.

i don't know about a soul, but i do feel that all life-forms (like trees, rocks, water, etc) do contain the "divine life force".

i wonder- is this divine life-force that which connects each and every one of us?
is it consciousness itself which all matter stems from?

[ñàéäèíã]

i also believe that the angels are actually e.t.'s, from personal experiences with meditation and calling upon the angels for healing. i believe that the e.t.'s used to live here on earth in ancient times as well, and that their life spans were so much longer than a normal human's lifespan that they might have seemed immortal to humans. just my opinion.

[arreskslarlig]

starseed? gosh, don't or you'll have me wondering about the "reptilians" again.
not sure what starseed is - is it what they ate to stay young? not sure how that relates to reptilians. i haven't decided whether the reptilian thing is believable, but i do believe there have been nonangelic ets and i call them annunaki, but there were probably others.

in an interview i saw recently, a shaman talked about a form of psychic vampirism (which i don't want to go into) as being the secret occult method of extending one's life.

there are many strange things under the sun, but what i was talking about has nothing to do with psychic vampirism. it's called alchemy.

[Aceroassert]

starseed? gosh, don't or you'll have me wondering about the "reptilians" again.
not sure what starseed is - is it what they ate to stay young? not sure how that relates to reptilians. i haven't decided whether the reptilian thing is believable, but i do believe there have been nonangelic ets and i call them annunaki, but there were probably others. things are getting weird here!

the only use of the term "starseed" i'm familiar with is used in describing usn' and other humanoidal types scattered around the cosmos. the archangel-like stars are sub-logi, we are their creation....so if the stars have seeded us onto various planets we can be properly called "starseed." no big deal. you, me, others...starseed.

however, if the annunaki or repti are having us for lunch i hope the overly rich, fatty food -- as humanity would find itself listed on the food pyramid -- will quickly clog up their arteries a bunch. ( revenge is the best way to get even.):d

all this talk about "living" longer and longer in this dreary earthly situation seems misplaced. once we have filled our soul contract its time to pick up our marbles and move on to the next project. think, people, we are going to be around for an eternity. overall, that seems long enough to suit most anybody ... one important caveat: that is, as long as long-living doesn't consist of doing the same o' same o' in the same old place like, forever .

an interesting aside is that supposedly the martian root-race lived many times longer than earthlings because on earth the high oxygen content of the atmosphere has a destructive effect. one can of course take a host of anti-oxidents -- but that strategy can backfire and shoot you in the foot if your growth hormone is too low....which of course drops down faster than age goes up...

what is the old chinese curse? ummm "may you live (forever ) in interesting times"

the other butter guy, billybob.

[V8V8V8]

hello everyone,

just wanted to add here why i take interests in this topic. its not like im on the search for a substance to live forever. i think we should read between the lines here about these ancient beliefs to understand that there was life of some sort of beings here before adam and eve. i think these stories that talk about a substance of 'starseed' that was consumed are fact enough for us to realize that adam and eve were not the first 'beings' here. now mabey adam and eve were the first humans of our kind with souls or something, but i dont think they were the first live 'beings' that were here. mabey the very first beings that descended here had to have a certain substance to maintain life in a physical form, for mabey their natural form was not physical. all in all, i think angles or e.ts, which ever you prefer to call them, roamed here before us. the ones that were not supposed to be here needed a substance to sustain their form here(or something like that).

to me, e.ts are a off shoot of the original angels, just as i think we are a offshoot of them as well. or possiblly e.ts are beings of the souls that have passed on and are waiting for the reuniting of all the levels of self to come together. i dont think the average e.t is the original being of angles that were created to serve and that still serve. i relate the e.ts to the 'fallen angles'. i dont think this means that all e.ts are on a negative path. i think some are truely on their path back to finding unity with the source of the divine light and love of all. these ones that are on the path back to the source could be the positive e.ts that some enconter. if they are on the positive path now, they probally are concerned with our results of our own paths because everyones path back to the source criss crosses with others on this path. so we find them observing our actions and wanting to express to us the importance of love and service to others to help us stay on this path.

if angles in some way our a part of our higher self, which i feel they are. then to me, it makes since of the possibility that some e.ts are a lower realm of ourselves, which would still be in a sence, a offshoot of angels. to me we see e.ts having great interests in us. they seem in a sense to love us in a magnetic kind of way. drawn to us if you will. i think if i was to see myself in the future, i would be drawn to myself for my own curiosities of what decisions i will make and wonderment of what paths will i choose. i consider there to be angels that are not what i would call e.ts. these would be the original angels created by god, the original offshoot of gods creation. then i see different offshoots of the angels forming many different varieties of life.

these are just simply rambles of the path of thoughts and feelings im venturing in right now. im not one to ever say something is right or wrong. i share things that i feel at times in my life of experience. presently i am finding great curiosities in the ideas of angels and us, being tied together somehow. the topic of the 'starseed' is just a fork in the road i found while reading on things that i felt had to do with the time that a form of angels roamed the earth.

peace to all,
lynette

[Aceroassert]

a.j. aka emily says: i don't know about a soul, but i do feel that all life-forms (like trees, rocks, water, etc) do contain the "divine life force".

i wonder- is this divine life-force that which connects each and every one of us?
is it consciousness itself which all matter stems from? hi, emily! you gotta suck it up and actually start speed-reading the recommended material! you are doing a disservice by tempting me to display ignorance through putting together half-baked answers. be warned: i've been told that i know just enough to be dangerous

emily, i think that your observation is correct...everything that is, is "the divine life force" empty space is not empty but instead packed "solid"with potential energy -- so actually dense is the "physical vacuum" that the nobel prize winner, richard feynman, once pointed out that, according to theory, a cupfull of physical 'vaccum' contains enough potential energy to not only heat up all the earth's oceans, but to then boil them away!.

what constitutes the cosmos, seen and unseen? as i gather from the ra stuff it could be thought of as "intelligent infinity" ... which infinite potential can be tapped into by consciousness and expressed as "intelligent energy" -- which could then take shape all the way from mud to archangel-like stars.

in the law of one all is god, aka ,the supreme being, the one creator, the prime creator, the all that is, the ground of all being ... which of course encompasses all "things" visable or invisable ... in short, the it is, is the cosmos! (please understand the reverse is not true, i.e., the cosmos is not god because the whole in this case is greater than the mere sum of the parts...this particular view of god is designated, panentheism -- which sounds like pantheism, but makes much more theological sense when you think about it. )

since it is a theological given that such a god must perforce totally love itself in all its expressions in order to exist, that means that god loves all of its cosmic beingness equally -- from the smallest element to its largest galaxy. ( since we are included somewhere in the middle of all of this, we --good bad, indifferent -- gotta be loved equally a whole bunch!)

was that a sermon?

pastor billybob

ps (warning. dw might shake his head and slap my hands for misconstrueing the above string of fanciful explanations )

[Aceroassert]

little lady say: hello everyone,

just wanted to add here why i take interests in this topic. its not like im on the search for a substance to live forever. i think we should read between the lines here about these ancient beliefs to understand that there was life of some sort of beings here before adam and eve. i think these stories that talk about a substance of 'starseed' that was consumed are fact enough for us to realize that adam and eve were not the first 'beings' here. now mabey adam and eve were the first humans of our kind with souls or something, but i dont think they were the first live 'beings' that were here. mabey the very first beings that descended here had to have a certain substance to maintain life in a physical form, for mabey their natural form was not physical. all in all, i think angles or e.ts, which ever you prefer to call them, roamed here before us. the ones that were not supposed to be here needed a substance to sustain their form here(or something like that). dear lynette, your postings certainly touch on a variety of interesting questions, but the nature of the speculations/questions themselves, along with the way they are posed, suggest that you are not all that familiar with the philosophy that forms the center of and radiates throughout david's website, the divine cosmos.

i don't mean to come off as a wet blanket, but you do need to read the required material -- as agreed upon when you clicked the button for posting in the group, -- that is, one claims to have some minimal pre-knowledge -- through reading -- of the basic material. it seems that if you had done the suggested homework you would not be posing many of the speculations/questions that you have been advancing. for instance, much concerning the essentials of the multi origin of life on earth are spelled out and can be found in the study guide to the ra material -- available on this site, at llresearch.org., and even on the wiki.

i might add that when i stumbled on divine cosmos i stayed glued to the computer for a couple of weeks -- i just about grew roots into the chair, i would try to sleep, but couldn't, and had to get up to explore some more.
one thing i quickly discovered was that this material is not compatible with many of the "givens" of the doctrinal pre-suppostions imprinted on the minds of those exposed early-on to christian ideas -- concepts that permeate the thinking of the western world...and i think i see this christian mind-set guiding much of your approach in dealing with new-age, new-thought.

(things on divine cosmos used to much simpler, and moved at a slower pace. when i joined up there was something like 250 active members...what is it now? six times that number? )

please don't misunderstand me, i do enjoy reading your comments, and i most certainly don't want you to go away. and, yes,i've bent the rules at times

here is #4 in the list that should serve as a helpful guideline to all.


4. we feel that the law of one represents a complete body of spiritual teaching, which becomes increasingly useful the more that it is studied and applied. this group is optimally designed for those who have made a free-will decision to study the teaching and harmonize their own attitudes and behaviors with it, instead of endlessly searching for more “new” teaching to read. be aware that mr. wilcock and his associates receive large volumes of email each day, and when a person “discovers” a new source of channeling they often email us and ask for our opinion. the recommended reading list is a direct result of this broad spectrum of feedback, and the vast majority of “popular” channeling is not included, and thereby considered off-topic. such material is best discussed on other message boards devoted to the study and integration of those particular teachings. the question of one’s personal journey in integrating the law of one teachings is of extreme interest and importance for this group, thus leading to practically limitless areas for personal sharing and participation in a “safe” atmosphere of mutual trust and respect. dear lynette, i trust you will forgive me for bringing this to your attention. its no big deal, just a well-intentioned suggestion. ( i can too easily imagine that you can think of some inspired suggestions to offer me in return )

love, bill gieskieng aka billybobbutterball ... who is noted for making mistakes a way of life.

[V8V8V8]

hi again to all,

thx for the feelings you have on my post billy! i find this very interesting that some people might feel like they 'drift' from the law if they 'search' other sources.

the only way i search a source is if my higher self urges me to.

i understand that some may feel i go against the law of one. but it is actually the law of one that let me get in touch with this higher self. so how do we use the law of one and our intuition of our selves. i think this is very important. above all things, the true source is in each and every one of us. so if my intuition leads me to take sources and learn how there is truth speaking through them, am i going against the law of one? i would like to hear opinions on this because the last thing i want to do is interfere with the research on this site.

in my personal opinion, we are here to experience for ourselves, for others and for god. i find this forum a great place to do this with others that live to be of positive force here on earth. i have read and re read things. i too have went through the time of being 'stuck' to my chair during these times of reading the law of one.

i guess i still feel the need to search and understand things. i think its important for us to give feedback on information that we each as individuals find that 'feels' right to ourselves. if you think someone else might have a similar interests then i think we should share our thoughts and go from there.

the reason i ever found this site was following intuitions that god led me on. not only does this research from david resonate with me of reason and understanding, davids vibes are unlike most peoples, they are pure and positive. my feelings tell me he is on a good path and i simply payed attention to that feeling by continuing in the research of his work ect....our world is blessed with him being here right now with us.

let me be frank, and if i offend anyone i am so very sorry. any channeling that is not of the higher self i find to not be a solid base. now with saying that, i have nothing against anyone that can take the positive out of channeling and use it. i feel the law of one is purely from a positive source and is a positive thing. i dont feel though its a rule book.

i find davids work to be a true tool to help one grow with the sou/spirit/mind complex. my mind remains a open mind though, continuing to grow and learn which ever way my soul my desire for the positive path.

i truly appreciate you bringing this up billy because i too was wondering if i was offending anyone here by discussing my feelings on certain things that spark my mind. my spirit is a positive spirit, my soul is a hopeful soul, and my mind remains a open mind. i have a passion for old literature and old findings and discoveries. i do my best to discuss things that i think pertain to 'the divine cosmos' in that forum, as well as what i think pertains to the '2012' forum to it, and so on. mabey ive taken advantage of the 'general questions' forum to some. i wasnt trying to do so though. thanks to all who share their experiences on here, you all have helped me grow

i found it ironic that when one claims to of use a source of information one wants to label you with that religion that the source comes from. i for one differ on this. take the religion out of it and reflect it on other sources of similar information and youll find some great truths. then you still all in all ask yourself, "does this feel right"-sometimes it takes other findings before you say, "yes, that is right" and sometimes the answer comes swiftly with no doubt that it is right immediatly. so, i posed some questions on the forum about topics that sparks my curiousities. i dont think there is one right way. i think you should take the many trails of bread crumbs and find out where they all lead to .

peace to all,
lynette

billy-i know you werent meaning anything bad by pointing out that my ideas were going against the grain a little-but honestly, it made me feel like i was back in church being told how i should think. i know you werent meaning this, but this is why im attracted to this forum, because it didnt put boundaries and limitations around my faith. i think that some might look at the law of one as like a religion. this is not what i want to feel for i have never felt that god wanted religion. so if we are attracted to the law of one, do we have to go by what is says and thats it? i would find this a sad end to my love and passion for new discoveries in a way.

[Anakattawl]

i don't mean to come off as a wet blanket, but you do need to read the required material -- as agreed upon when you clicked the button for posting in the group, -- that is, one claims to have some minimal pre-knowledge -- through reading -- of the basic material. it seems that if you had done the suggested homework you would not be posing many of the speculations/questions that you have been advancing...

i felt compelled to answer this statement... i've been a forum member since 04/07, i think number 400 something and have participated through the explosive growth, gaining much insight from many members and possibly offering a little along the way...

anyway, i've never completed the law of one study guide or have read any "recommended readings"... i'd like to think that i haven't offended anyone here with my ignorance on a couple of topics, nor have i necessarily disobeyed any "rules" by "not" doing this. maybe its my sense of "free will", but i tend to get pretty "huffy" when told what to do...

we all come from diverse backgrounds and each of us has unique insight and perspective to offer. therefore, i wouldn't say that someone who hasn't read the study guide, etc., doesn't have anything valuable to contribute. in addition, even with all of the fantastic information and knowledge contained within the law of one, it is still distorted in my opinion, just like all other sources are.

i came to this website after doing what everyone else did - endlessly search and someday found my way here. the material i read resonated and i decided to check out the forum. first and only forum i've ever participated in - due mostly to the insight of the members and dw's fantastic work.

i definitely believe in respecting "the general rules and sanctity of the dc website", and moreso other members.

btw - i tend to make alot of mistakes too. in this case, likely a strong, and unnecessary overreaction. however, i felt compelled to respond.

sent with good intent,

art

[Aceroassert]

litllady hi again to all,

thx for the feelings you have on my post billy! i find this very interesting that some people might feel like they 'drift' from the law if they 'search' other sources.

the only way i search a source is if my higher self urges me to.

i understand that some may feel i go against the law of one. but it is actually the law of one that let me get in touch with this higher self. so how do we use the law of one and our intuition of our selves. i think this is very important. above all things, the true source is in each and every one of us. so if my intuition leads me to take sources and learn how there is truth speaking through them, am i going against the law of one? i would like to hear opinions on this because the last thing i want to do is interfere with the research on this site. hi, lynette, for some reason i have a hitch in my side, plus i'm having trouble remembering my name..b?bb?b? hey! vodoo isn't one of your many interests and accomplishments, is it ( thought so )

nah, just kidding. i feel pretty good -- but come to think of it the name still escapes me -- but that's nothin' new.

hmm...evidently i didn't make myself very clear. your statement suggesting the idea that those on the dc site consider searching other "truths" (sources?) being the same as drifting away from the "law", sorta leaves me fuzzy headed. actually, i read a bunch of pot-pouri spiritual writing, but if it is obviously off topic i don't bring it back here. (sometimes it is difficult to tell if it properly belongs or not.)

the term, off-topic, is sometimes misunderstood; as used here it does not mean drifting away from a thread topic, but rather it refers to the topic lists mentioned in the "rules for participation in the forum" (have you read them?)

going against the law of one? not sure how you do that. the law just is. in the statement above you make it sound like a rule of law that can be "broken". actually, the loo is a term for the philosophical concept that the cosmic all is unity. as stated in the beginning this idea is fundamental in defining one of the the main reason for the group's establishment and its on-going viability -- although it can be discussed and analyzed -- its ultimate viabilty is non-debatable on this site ( this must be or we would be flooded by trolls and other dedicated nasties trying to blow things apart...sorry...i luvs em


it seems reasonable that because of its importance to the group mind-set one should at least have a basic understanding of what the "law" is all about ... what it actually implies when it comes to analyzing our being in relationship with others and god/cosmos. most discussions here on the site implicitly assume the law of one as a taken-for-granted "given."

i found it ironic that when one claims to of use a source of information one wants to label you with that religion that the source comes from. i for one differ on this. take the religion out of it and reflect it on other sources of similar information and youll find some great truths. then you still all in all ask yourself, "does this feel right"-sometimes it takes other findings before you say, "yes, that is right" and sometimes the answer comes swiftly with no doubt that it is right immediatly. so, i posed some questions on the forum about topics that sparks my curiousities. i dont think there is one right way. i think you should take the many trails of bread crumbs and find out where they all lead to . putting a label on it? it is not the "source" of information but rather the philosophical disposition it uses to leaven ideas -- that pre-suppositional condition does deserve a label. example: for some 10 years i was a christian believer. i was particulary interested in basic theology, and especially its branch known as apologetics (defense of the faith) from my own exposure to it i know first hand that orthodox christians have a particular doctrinal view of the world and its creator... i would deal with baptists, jehovah's witnesses, mormons, arminians, calvinists, rc, trad cats...and because they had labels knew what their essential doctrines were... that saved a lot of discussion time with everyone knowing just where everyone else was coming from.

and as it turns out all of the above views are dramatically incompatible with the ra material which is founded on the law of one and is expressed in a more formal manner than previous new thought writings (that also includes the law of confusion, veil of forgetfulness, and, and,....etc. ) the ra, loo and "christianity" cannot be grafted together succesfully. the upshot is that it is not easy for a new thought christian to do the needed mental flip-flop without getting stuck halfway around and left in schizoid confusion...i know!

if one wants to follow bread crumbs, go down bunny trails, that is fine, and an example of so-called free will. i would only point out that the ra material saves us a lot of time and effort and does get us to the point of it all. intellectual explorations are fun, but an expensive luxury that infringes on our main purpose... which is to keep our eye on the main goal ... talking about that would be on topic!

peace to all,
lynette

billy-i know you werent meaning anything bad by pointing out that my ideas were going against the grain a little-but honestly, it made me feel like i was back in church being told how i should think. i know you werent meaning this, but this is why im attracted to this forum, because it didnt put boundaries and limitations around my faith. i think that some might look at the law of one as like a religion. this is not what i want to feel for i have never felt that god wanted religion. so if we are attracted to the law of one, do we have to go by what is says and thats it? i would find this a sad end to my love and passion for new discoveries in a way. lynette, i agree with you in some ways more than you realize. its not that i thought you were going against the grain but rather that you don't realize that many of your questions have already been answered and are available. for you. it isn't that they have all the answers...some they cannot give to us because it would infringe on our freedom of will. they (the ra) are not to be taken as an infallible guru or pope....the ra says that if anything in the messages doesn't resonate with you, then ignore it, dump it, as it is obviously not for you.

the thought comes to me that if you familarize yourself with the ra stuff your inner guide might have more material on hand to pass on to you.

important note!:the law of one is not a religion but a philosophy of religion (and that is a big difference!) do we have to go by what it says? nooo! that would constitute an infringment on free will i.e.,the law of confusion...the idea of having to do it is of negative polarity. bad! (bad for us positive aspirers, that is)

does the above imply that the divine cosmos is a clever negative ruse because it has rules and guidlines? hmmm. i'm too tired to discuss that one! ... something about order vs anarchy, i guess...

again, lynette, i merely wanted to help. i enjoy your comments. but being a man i make the same mistake as other males do, thinking that when a women discusses a problem she wants someone to rush in with a wrench and "fix" it"...when actually all she wants to do is vent

love and all... thanks for the opportunity to prea...whoops!, discuss things
billbobalong sorry for all the sloppy typos.

[Aceroassert]

i felt compelled to answer this statement... i've been a forum member since 04/07, i think number 400 something and have participated through the explosive growth, gaining much insight from many members and possibly offering a little along the way...

anyway, i've never completed the law of one study guide or have read any "recommended readings"... i'd like to think that i haven't offended anyone here with my ignorance on a couple of topics, nor have i necessarily disobeyed any "rules" by "not" doing this. maybe its my sense of "free will", but i tend to get pretty "huffy" when told what to do...

snip

even with all of the fantastic information and knowledge contained within the law of one, it is still distorted in my opinion, just like all other sources are.


art

hi, art.

your firmly expressed objection to my controlling nature is duly noted.

art, you've been around forever, and all your writings go down smooth without a snizzle. and here you confess to pulling it all off while operating undercover. i can't say the same for myself since i've had a few posts axed before they saw the light of print.

i can only wonder how many others besides yourself have been operating in stealth mode. hmmm from now on i'll be suspicious and looking

just for fun, if you feel like it, would you read the policy statements and give your opinion whether it is fashioned reasonably or not? does it provide the needed fine balance between tyranny and chaos?

as for your doing such a great job this last year i can only guess that your veil of forgetfullness has a slipped off a notch, which has allowed forbidden knowledge to leak in around the sides.

for certain the law of one etc, is a distortion. you have read the material!

huffyness is good. i used to enjoy it. i even think i had a temper once. no, no, don't geneflect.. not sainthoodness ... just got old, tired and unflappable. but, come to think about it, my feelings do get hurt.

okay, art, your point is well taken. no chains for you!

best, billybobfreespirit

[arreskslarlig]

billybatteredbubbleball,

i have probably read at least half what i ought to, but i already knew the law of one when i got here and quickly recognized it.

you know, that's why i call myself onething...cause one thing is all there is. it's an old handle i've used on other sites.

i got to hand it to the ra, s/he has got a lotta stuff figured out!

[Anakattawl]

well, there's no call for drama and i apolgize for taking a harsh stance...

i really hate to say it, but the main reason i haven't read the law of one is that i find it difficult to absorb. yes, i've read plenty of passages, but that doesn't mean i've read it. in this fashion, my perspectives and insight are limited due to this manner of study - thats why i depend on the more educated members to bring clearer insight, etc., in regards to the law of one material.

each of us are forming a unique perspective based on our learning, and it my sincere hope that as we move forward, a clearer, more concise picture will be held by all of us. this will certainly be difficult to achieve as we continue to focus on the differences of perception, or simply, "the details"...

i've said it before on this forum - the limitations of written language can be so frustrating; often there is ambiguity and room for interpretation, which can often lead to simple misunderstandings...

billy, hopefully your statement about getting your feelings hurt is another one of your quirky (although very much appreciated) comedic statements. if not, then let me sincerely apologize as this was never intended...

[arreskslarlig]

what i forgot to ask, billybob, or whomever, is how do you view this higher self thing? where did it come from? it is definitely 'out there' in the new age circuit. is it part of ra's teachings, or what?

i haven't quite figured out how to fit it into my metaphysical worldview, or even if i should. despite that i use the term anyway, sometimes!

[jinnamys]

i keep searching for quotes to reply to certain points but can never find the appropriate one for some reason!

i think i'm right in saying that ra describes the higher self as being your own spiritual essence as a 6d entity on the cusp of 7d offering assistance in your own spiritual development

[arreskslarlig]

yes, i had heard that, perhaps it relates to another expression i have heard 'out there" which is 'multidimensional self.'

again, not sure how to take that.

but i am wondering about the origin of the idea of a higher self, and how it has gotten into society, and how it relates to soul and spirit.