Thanks! u/Graphenium:
The worldview expressed in the Law of One/“Ra Material” and the Hidden Hand interview
https://www.wanttoknow.info/secret_societies/hidden_hand_081018
The way I see things, these two sources explain existence, the state of our world, and the meaning of life far more accurately than any other. One is a “channeled” work, and the other is a long series of Questions and Answers between a conspiracy forum (RiP ATS) and a self-proclaimed world-controller. I see them as complimentary, showing a deeper reality by showing two sides of the same coin. One side being that of Service-to-Others, and the other being Service-to-Self
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ASG9Vy4Tl/round-table-suggestion-thread/c
Thread will stay open for 3-4 weeks thanks to a very helpful suggestion.
Do these texts not present a picture in which the duality of physical existence (something I think is undeniable) ultimately reconcile in the monad (aka God)? That’s how I read them certainly.
Does this picture you paint not imply that up until that encounter with truth, Butters/we are immersed in a very real (in the sense that it can be experienced) untruth? If he never believed “she loves me”, then the truth (and furthermore, the perspective that truth brings) that “she doesn’t love me” wouldn’t be something he could experience, right?
Idk… I know where you’re coming from regarding dualism, but I don’t see that reconciliation happening at our level of existence. It seems to me that Duality is real, but a reality which ultimately springs from a Monad and is eventually reconciled in that Monad. Duality is almost an epiphenomena of existence. In order for something to “exist” in our physical reality (or to have anything approaching “meaning”), so too must exist the possibility of “ceasing to exist” in that physical reality.
Edit to add
See, I have a totally different read on the order of events there. Before satan introduces his “lie”, the Garden is in a state of static and unchanging “Truth”. They had “the truth” but without the option to choose. Untruth didn’t yet exist, according to the story. And thus there was no death, no suffering, and logically, no growth. So I see growth as an epiphenomenon of the introduction of the catalyst of “untruth” in the Garden
My current take, and I will come back to it, is that the material contains such overt contradictions that your extra work reconciling it is better spent with less illogical material. I'm the one saying to unspoil all things and to find the valid concerns in things, but I don't see you distancing from contradiction but excusing it.
List the top three contradictions in your view, but note that if they are reconciled in the text that you apparently still haven’t finished reading, 5 years after I first linked it to you, I will be starting each sentence with “what are you, retarded?”
I'll make time for it!
Thank you reminding me via an indirect link made to a different person, as my perception of how we'd have this conversation didn't retain this view of the form. Going forward note: Telling me to search "three" didn't work because I thought I found the right one and it was too vague to answer so I didn't actually press on to find the right one.
Becoming or No Becoming? "The Law of One, though beyond the limitations of name, as you call vibratory sound complexes, may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator." (4.20) "Therefore, gradually, step by step, the Creator becomes that which may know Itself, and the portions of the Creator partake less purely in the power of the original word or thought. This is for the purpose of refinement of the one original thought. The Creator does not properly create as much as It experiences Itself." (82.10) If All is Infinite Creator, that must include all time because otherwise Creator would not be Infinite. But an Infinite Creator including all time cannot "become", or have "become", because that which becomes, like that which has become, cannot include all time.
Right or No Right? "Let us illustrate by observing the relative harmony and unchanging quality of existence in one of your, as you call it, primitive tribes. The entities have the concepts of lawful and taboo, but the law is inexorable and all events occur as predestined. There is no concept of right and wrong, good or bad. It is a culture in monochrome. In this context you may see the one you call Lucifer as the true light-bringer in that the knowledge of good and evil both precipitated the mind/body/spirits of this Logos from the Edenic conditions of constant contentment but also provided the impetus to move, to work and to learn. Those Logoi whose creations have been set up without free will have not, in the feeling of those Logoi, given the Creator the quality and variety of experience of Itself as have those Logoi which have incorporated free will as paramount." (77.17) "There is no magic greater than honest distortion toward love." (55:2) "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." (27:13) But, if there is no polarity and no right (4:20), there is no true and no great, and nothing is "the true light-bringer" compared via polarity to anything else like the distortion Love being the true light-bringer, nor any magic "greater" than any other distortion.
Identity or No Identity? "The seventh density is a density of completion and the turning towards timelessness or foreverness." (41.16) "At the seventh level or dimension, we shall, if our humble efforts are sufficient, become one with all, thus having no memory, no identity, no past or future, but existing in the all." (16.22) If we become one with all, we would not be "in" all as a subset, nor would "we" cease to have identity as "we" because otherwise it would not be "we" doing the becoming nor would it be "all" (the Creator) being one with us.
Separately, I'll give "Ra" credit for not saying the Creator "became aware" in 13.12 as he is wrongly summarized as saying, but "discerned", which does not imply becoming; 13.12 actually says "The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned due to freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One." However, the "becoming" is affirmed in 82.10.
No, I'm not interested in making excessive time for the entirety of a channeled theory of morality that rejects right and wrong but incentivizes the "self-serving" at a rate of 45 times the rate it incentivizes service to others (-45% versus +1%). Only enough time to be confident I haven't missed something subtle about it.
Regarding 2)
What are you, retarded?
Your issue is incomprehensible. Do you live in a “primitive tribe”? No? Then what is said is not directly applicable to you, but is instead said to illuminate your ignorance via exposure to an unimagined (by you) perspective.
Regarding 3)
Again, you seem to have trouble understanding that you, a temporally limited being, are reading a description of a temporally unlimited process. No fucking shit it’s tough to describe with words. But tell us more cope about how your story has no “contradictions” like this what-so-ever. No omnipotent omniscient being getting blindsided by events so hard that he wipes the slate clean and starts over, no being overcome with emotions, no logical mismatches between eternities and ages and New Heavens and New Earths and New Testaments and supposedly timeless beings.
You’re gunna need to walk me through what it is you think you’re saying here lmao, because I assure you, it’s incorrect as fuck.
Regarding 1)
What are you, retarded? This is pure semantics. Obviously you view yahweh as equivalent to the One Infinite Creator, yet your book is CHOCK FULL of this supposedly timeless entity “becoming” Wroth, or Jealous, or overcome with Regret, or Grief. Im not even going to bother getting verses because such things occur literally hundreds of times across the OT.
So either your god isn’t timeless, or you’re blind to your own double standards.
Their lie, the illusion, is the duality. No, when it comes to reconciliation, whatever is false is obliterated. They do not merge together say... or integrate. Finite beings encounter truth partially. That partial encounter creates tension, contradiction, fragmentation. That fragmentation is felt as duality.
What the texts say rhetorically works and it is compelling because the duality feels real. It is phenomenological. But it is not ontological.
Yes, in a sense he is immersed in something experientially real. But he is experiencing reality through a misaligned interpretation. The "real" untruth can feel coherent because his mind fills in gaps and his assumptions and emotions reinforce his interpretation. The untruth is not a reality in of itself... it is an illusion or delusion built on the misreading of reality. Butters wasn't living in a false world, he still lives in the real wrld but interpreting it incorrectly until truth exposed the gap.
Yes, duality is an epiphenomenon of finite, misaligned perception encountering a unified reality. It is experientially real, but not ontologically fundamental.
Well, this is the death thing I wanted to clarify on. Is death transition or ceasing to exist? A leaf "dies" and becomes soil. A belief "dies" and gives way to truth. Butter's illusion "dies" but reality remains. Nothing fundamental disappears, but configurations change.
Meaning in things does not require a counter-force, it just takes participation in that something. and that participation leads to change and transformation or a "death" per se. In John's gospel we are asked to follow first and then these things emerge from that participation. Alignment.
The garden always had choice. Boundaries were set with the tree of knowledge without another reality. And I can hear the cries (extrapolating from the texts) of why oh why was this forbidden tree created in the first place?.. What God would do such a thing to where this is possible? Surely it was Satan's suggestion that saved us from bondage of this static world... and that misses the whole point of what reality is. The tree of knowledge allows the finite being to participate with the created order from whence meaning and understanding emerge... what untold wisdom and knowledge would we have had we participated in these rules? But man chose non-participation. Misaligned, fallen, degenerate... and thus when man encounters something true, it transforms him.
I think this duality notion might be the thing to try and drill into? If you’ll forgive what im sure will be a tangled mess of thoughts.
I agree with this, regarding what is false - but I don’t believe duality is false. Let me ask how you integrate the following (which you’re surely familiar with) into your beliefs:
> I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
That strikes me as indicating that “Creation” (as we, in our finitude, can know it) is a dualistic place via design. I’ve infact raised this in the c/Christianity community, seeking an answer that made more sense than this. Yes, yes, I know some men, very important men, labeled these ideas “Heresy”, but these discussions to me are about making an appeal to our God-given gift of reason, not an appeal to “authority”. Forgive the tangent lol. It’s all to say, the best argument I found was based on the notion of Creation being, well, created, ”all good”. And, to cut a long story short, while that sentence can be the Truth in isolation, I don’t find it convincing wholistically, I find it to be a “pushing off of responsibility”. If an omniscient being comes up with a plan to create Creation, He knows what that entails. He thus creates both Good, and Evil, and existence is all the richer for it (as I believe can be read in the Bible, and as I believe the HH/LoO stuff just kind of…updates for our time the same divine wisdom) and trying to skeeve the existence of evil off onto “Satan”, Adam, Eve, the Nephilim, you, me, whoever! just does a disservice to the true majesty of God’s creation. It’s a simplifying of the story for children. We all have a role to play, including those “vessels meant for destruction”
Did it though? Without “knowledge of Good and Evil”, what kind of choices could even be made? - “What should I eat right now?” “What should I call this animal?” - I see the choices we are capable of in a state of innocence are far more restricted than the state that came after, don’t you? They were like perfect Children at that point, babes…your baby doesn’t know right from wrong, and no parent would punish a baby for their choice made in innocent ignorance
Anyway, think I can cut myself off there, hopefully enough of that gets through lol. I’ll just say, i quite appreciate this conversation. If I ever come across combatively, it’s just because of how important I actually think the subject is. Cheers
I think the mistake is treating Adam and Eve like abstract ideas instead of real people. They’re often lumped together as one unit of humanity, but they’re actually distinct, relational beings. They already have boundaries, roles, and an awareness of each other... they know trust, they understand consequences, and they feel the effects of their choices. Moral awareness isn’t something the tree suddenly gives them - it’s already there. The tree just shows how their wills line up... or don’t... with God. They’re not blank slates or naive, I think they’re fully relational agents from the start. Meaningful choice was already part of who they were.
Dogs also exhibit all of these characteristics but we don’t (truly) regard them as beings capable of moral choice.
Going to have to disagree with this based on my understanding of the story - would you say a fish “knows” water? In the same sense that a fish is immersed in water, Adam and Eve were immersed in “trust” while in the presence of God, but I don’t know if it can be said that they “knew” trust… does anyone really know what trust is before they experience trust being broken? Furthermore, I don’t think you can say they understood consequences or felt the effects of their choices - that’s kind of the entire point of their eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge…they didn’t “understand” they were naked until they ate the fruit - they were (apparently) completely innocent regarding the consequences of their choices up until that point.
Onto the tree itself:
So then why were we forbidden from the tree’s fruit? If the fruit is what allows us to align ourselves with God (or atleast, what allows us to “know” how aligned we are with God) it makes no sense that He would forbid us from it, no? It sounds like humanity without the FotToKoGaE would basically be like robots, who were capable of performing actions but with no capacity for moral accounting. They could kill but had no idea killing was “unaligned with God’s will”. Idk, maybe you’d be willing to expand on what role you see the Tree playing in God’s plan? Were we always meant to eat of it? Or was that the first time we fucked up?
I see duality far more integral to Creation… and im not just talking about human perception either. Dark is just as real as Light - when we perform the Dual Slit experiment, we see not just constructive interference producing Light spots, but simultaneously destructive interference producing Dark spots. Cold is just as real as Hot, Up is just as real as Down - yes, duality is, almost definitionally, a “relational” notion, you must know “Thing” to understand “not-Thing”, I just don’t see how that leads to the conclusion duality is “not real”
What does moral awareness without God even look like? The only thing that comes to mind to describe such a scenario is something along the lines of “Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”…. I might give you something along the lines of “they had amoral awareness”, but “moral awareness”? Without the “knowledge of Good and Evil?” I don’t get how such as thing would be possible
Isaiah 45:7 is a declaration of sovereignty, and all things are in relation to Him... and this is very different than this being a dualistic creation by design, but I can understand why that would be the thought. I think the verse actually shows creation is monistic and relational.
So, Looking back at the tree of knowledge... a Dualistic or rather LoO approach would/does make the tree something ironically manipulative. It is adversarial in its nature. The Tree becomes a device of external moral coercion, a shit test of obedience against an opposing force (or polarity). Free will is paradoxically manufactured.
The "One source" approach is the tree of knowledge is relational and participatory. The tree is a mirror to the human will.
So, when I say choice always existed in the Garden... that is fundamental to our nature as humans. When viewed from the one source lens, the catalyst is not the tree itself, but the human heart. It is a relational awareness that is activated with the tree, how much the human heart aligns with God's.
I'll add more later...
*addition:
Speaking to Isaiah 45:7, the word in Hebrew for evil is Ra'. I'm not sure if there is significance to this regarding the Law of One. Perhaps an unconscious reference to this justifying our inner turmoil and misalignment and perhaps these texts need redemption.
I suppose I need clarification on "richer".
From the monistic lens, God doesn’t create duality as a cosmic principle. What we experience as duality... struggle, failure, conflict... is really misalignment with the source. God reaches into that misalignment and recenters it on Himself, transforming the struggle into growth, the failure into humility, and the suffering into compassion. Richness exists in that restoration, not in the fracture itself. Otherwise, what would be the motivation to change these things?
God doesn't need to punish or balance these things, it is a condition to be redeemed.
And yes, I share that instinct. Evil isn’t a separate being or substance to pin blame on. From the Orthodox perspective, our condition is more like a sickness... we need a physician. We need healing, and God is the one who restores what is fractured.
Heck, I'd almost go as far to say a satan is not real but a hallucination of our misalignment with reality. Jesus consistently exposes the powerlessness of Satan. Jesus in the desert, focuses on obedience and relational alignment, not on combating the adversary. Exorcisms - The “demons” are expelled, showing that what appears as opposition has no independent existence outside the relational context... Jesus often frames him metaphorically...
The duality we see... good versus evil... that’s really just a story we tell ourselves. It’s a projection, a way of trying to explain what’s really happening when our will is out of alignment.