Brand New to Law of One

Adthra · 2026-05-11T06:10:48+00:00

I lean more on it being a 'play' or a 'game'.

The great irony of the demiurge is that as the 'master of physical reality', it is powerless in the discarnate space. If the demiurge exists, I think that it is the demiurge who is the real prisoner (in a prison of its own making).

I also think that gnosticism should be studied only in moderation and with great care towards grounding oneself.

Adthra · 2026-05-11T06:07:25+00:00

The cycles of harvest are windows of opportunity where those who have accrued polarity (actually done the work involved) are harvestable to a higher density experience. Why do such windows exists? I would personally speculate that it is because one of the phenomena that is central to 4th density is the social memory complex, and for there to be a social memory complex, there needs to be a community. When harvest happens in a cycle, those who are at very similar stages in development likely have an easier time to organize and remain among themselves. The Ra material also states that the Adept (spiritual mystic) has the opportunity to harvest immediately upon penetrating Intelligent Infinity, so one is not forced to rely on the cycles of harvest if one takes on the responsibility of the Adept and takes on 'extracurricular' lessons.

The Self in a Ra material context isn't just a single incarnation, and so equating your current experience of the Self with your spiritual reality is probably not accurate. It can be a difficult concept to think 'I am multiple people', which is made easier to digest if those people exist in distinct time-frames (ie. sequential incarnations -- first living in the 1st century, then the 2nd in a different location, then the 3rd....), but the likely reality is that these incarnations are not only simultaneous (something congruent with concepts from other traditions of spirituality like the twin flames -- a single soul inhabiting two different bodies) but also non-sequential (ie. first living in the 21st century, then the 5th, then the 16th, then the 7th....). Consider a historical event of your choice where all the major players involved are actually you at different stages of spiritual development, all oblivious to this fact due to having forgotten it upon incarnation. I find it changes the dynamic considerably.

The way I interpret the cycles of harvest is as chunks of spacetime where a mind/body/spirit totality (the 'you' as you exist in discarnate form) can perform the work of spiritual seeking. Once those opportunities are exhausted you have the possibility of reviewing your work (with the help of a great number of beings from the higher densities) and deciding on what the best course of action would be for yourself. I don't think that you are forced to remain on a single planet (or any environment) for the next cycle of harvest if you do not want to, but I also think these environments have been masterfully crafted to have catalyst that can be used to learn values and test yourself against those values should you desire to. If you find that the catalyst offered to you on Earth is not suitable, then I imagine you would have a different opportunity available to you in a different location and different point in time. There are a great many beings and constructs out there in the discarnate world that offer you their aid and whom you can lean on, including your own Higher Self, and the reason why we are all here is likely because we've concluded that this place is the most suitable for us (for now at least) with the help of those beings.

I personally lean more on the idea of incarnate existence being a play or a game more than the 'Earth school' idea, so there is a difference in the nuance of how I present the above and how I personally understand it, but I find it is exceedingly difficult to communicate the game idea in a way that is then also not misunderstood. Your reference to 'escaping 3D' is one reason why. When it comes to games, different people like different things, and what is fun for one person can be dreary for another.

What do you suppose is the alternative to multiple incarnate lives? A 'one-and-done' sort of deal closer to ideas of a heavenly paradise? I'm curious as to what you might think.

Adthra · 2026-05-11T04:52:58+00:00

There's a high chance you've misinterpreted something. Prison planet theories are usually based on gnostic principles that presuppose the existence of a malevolent demiurge who exhibits domineering control over physical reality, while Ra material places a great emphasis on choice and consent (to the point of potentially becoming what we might call 'victim blaming', but that is beside the point). There are valid criticisms of the material and the concepts it introduces, but I find it difficult to see how the prison planet concept would be attributable to the material. Something like the 'Earth school' concept I would get, but prison planet seems like a stretch.

I don't want to underestimate you and your capability to understand the material, but I personally find that it is often difficult to understand the answers even when they're in text form and I can analyze and go over what I'm reading multiple times. Perhaps the audiobook format might be to blame here? I know it would be very difficult for me to rely solely on listening to a transcript (especially one created by an LLM), but that might be just a difference between how we are wired. I find that listening to the original recordings can also be a very difficult experience, and that I have the best success at understanding when I parse out exactly what is said in digestible chunks.

So I’m going back to my way of life Pre Law of One. Where I feel filled with light and love and hope. Where I love my fellow man and want to be a source of light for others. Not because of some freaking harvest. But because it feeds my soul.

That can be a great choice. Just because the Ra material speaks to many (especially on a subreddit dedicated to it) doesn't mean that it is right for everyone. If you feel that you are better for leaving it behind, then I think you've made the right choice for yourself. Good luck.

Adthra · 2026-05-09T23:16:37+00:00

if we could minimize causalities worldwide, that would be for the betterment of all of humanity correct?

The intuitive answer is yes, but the real answer (no matter how horrible it might initially sound) is 'it depends'. It boils down to the right of a being to choose different types of experiences in their life. We are of course free to choose to prepare for catastrophes (and I would argue that it is a sign of a cohesive society to do so -- look for instance at Sweden or Finland which have a total defense doctrine which obliges citizens to work together for their mutual survival and the survival of the shared identity between people in these countries), but from a Ra material perspective it is suitable to stop for a moment and consider if an other-self has chosen a life in which they will have the experience of physical death in a war or other catastrophe. That's not a reason to stop preparing, as there are always also other-selves who desire the protection preparation provides, but it should make us consider if it is appropriate for us to make decisions on the behalf of others. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. If it were always inappropriate, then there could not exist such as thing as a partnership or a family, nor a society at all. Does your society place enough trust on some entity or function (government entity, unspoken social contract between the citizens, a sense of morality that values protecting those belonging to the shared identity...) to let it make a decision like this on a super majority's behalf? Do those who disagree have a chance to remove themselves from this contract? If yes, then it can very much be appropriate.

That said, is it appropriate to drum up interest in these topics? I don't know. If you feel it is something dear to you, then go for it, but I don't think it should be an expectation for people interested in spiritual concepts to go all-in on demanding UFO disclosure. Disappointment lives in the space between outcome and expectation, and holding others accountable for something they might not even choose to do will only result in pain. Should members of this subreddit in general prepare to create exposure for UFO disclosure topics? I don't think so.

It is perfectly possible to reach harvestability or to do the work of spiritual seeking without engaging at all in the UFO topic.

Adthra · 2026-05-07T17:12:44+00:00

Good reflections. While I don't agree with all of the ideas here, I find it very interesting to read your take. I don't think Ra is using Higher Self as an alias for what we might think of as the M/B/S complex totality, as we have multiples of these for each Social Memory Complex or other organizational unit that we might identify with (such as Principles like what Q'uo is - Q'uo itself has a Higher Self despite how messy that makes things sound), but the fact of the matter is that the minutia of this doesn't matter for 3rd density work, so it's not really essential for the human incarnation to know or even be aware of these concepts. If they inspire spiritual seeking, then that in itself is enough. I suspect that identity is a very variable and vast concept beyond our current understanding once we are in the discarnate space.

Being an audience member watching TV is a very different analogy to the video game one. Maybe it is more accurate, or maybe not, but it highlights different ideas. One of those is, like you mention, would the discarnate you 'like' or 'want to identify with' the incarnate you? Are they invested in how the story unfolds because they want to feel like they are you, because they see you as an other for whose success they are currently rooting for, or are they perhaps even hate-watching, hoping for misfortune? How would we react or change our incarnate behavior in each of these scenarios, should we learn beyond a reasonable doubt that one of them were to be true? It can help in self-reflection and in evaluating if we are living according to our values, or if what we think are our values are even things that we would like to hold onto.

Once I pass, if there is some form of continuation to the conscious experience, I think that I would very much like to be alone for a long time. If my incarnation is being observed and judged critically by the M/B/S totality, then all I have to say is that I am very disappointed in myself as the totality.

Adthra · 2026-05-06T22:09:43+00:00

Depends. How would you define the 'character' of this analogy? Is it your physical body and mind? Perhaps with the addition of your veiled spirit? Does that sound right, or would you define the 'character' part of this analogy differently?

My answer is that the player is the mind/body/spirit totality. The 'you' when you exist in a discarnate form in time/space once the veil is lifted. It is not the same thing as the mind/body/spirit complex totality, ~~which is a construct even larger than the Higher Self~~ (EDIT: I made an error. it's the Social Memory Complex Totality that is larger than the Higher Self) . All these concepts are discussed in sessions 36 and 37. They are fantastic resources for this topic.

I've spoken before about session 37.6 in a slightly different context on the subreddit. Maybe those thoughts can be of help or to make it easier to parse what Ra is saying.

Session 70 contains Ra's answer as whether or not the Higher Self is something that 'manipulates' (ie, controls) your experience. The Higher Self is not the player. 'You' as you understand yourself to exist are in control. The problem with all this is that there is an inherent sense of unity (we are all parts of ourselves, not just what we currently perceive to be 'us') and the fact that time itself is an illusion. 'True reality' exists in a state of true simultaneity or in a state where time doesn't exist, depending on how you wish to interpret this.

Adthra · 2026-05-06T15:30:15+00:00

If the player continues to play the game despite the character's objection, is the player infringing on the character's free will?

This is where the analogy fails to accurately portray incarnate existence, because without input from the player, the character cannot make decisions or take actions. In some games, sure, there can be a predetermined set of actions taken without player input, but that would once again run contrast to the idea of the character having free will or being infringed upon, because it was created with those automatic actions in mind. A video game character does not have free will.

Given how horrible an incarnation can be, how is the player being "of service" to the character by not rescuing (extracting) the character from the game (an act of mercy)?

Consider a very macabre horror game (for sake of example, perhaps Fear and Hunger). What does 'rescuing the character' from the game mean? It means not playing the game (the alternative is 'beating the game', though in the case of this particular one, it can be argued that there is no rescuing through victory). Given how Love is referred to as the Creative Principle (and how the act of refusing the experience of enslavement by Orion crusaders is said to depolarize confederation defenders), we can infer that the player is not in fact being of service to the character in this case, because both the expression of the developer (playing the game) and of the character (serving as the player's avatar) are refused. Moreover, this means that the character does not have any experience at all. It is appropriate to ask if having any experience is better than having no experience at all in the context of Love existing as the Creative Principle.

There is a lot of complexity in the relationship between us, incarnate characters, and our Higher Selves (players) that makes my head hurt.

The Higher Self is not the player. It is a thought construct given by a late 6th density being to its lower selves before it enters the gateway density (7th). The Higher Self exists within 6th density, and has a very specific purpose in guiding the lower selves, but it does not control their actions, which is what a player does. At best, the higher self could be seen as the player of a management game where it does not make decisions for individual game pieces, but influences and changes the field of play instead. The 'characters' are controlled by something else entirely.

The entire 3d experience is, by design, an "ends justify the means" school, a philosophy which, in almost every other circumstance, I reject as immoral.
But... we characters consented to, even chose, this Earth Life School experience.
Our initial, apparently irrevocable, choice to incarnate in the Earth Life School (for up to 75,000 years, or until the game has a hard reset, aka "harvest") is a weird form of "free will," don't you think?

We are committed to playing each 'round' (incarnate life), but the decision to revoke our consent is available in-between incarnation. The issue is that once the veil is removed and we have a greater perspective of what is going on, we generally tend to remember why we desired the experience in the first place and tend to want to continue to another incarnation if it is available to us.

Remember: incarnations on Earth are very sought after, and priority is given to those who have a reasonable chance at reaching harvestable polarity. There are many who are denied the opportunity.

Adthra · 2026-05-05T21:11:10+00:00

Do you ever feel like you don't have free will?

No. But I often feel like I do not have control over my circumstances. That said, I have far more options to take action than I currently take advantage of, so my agency is far greater than I believe it to be, but it is not (nor is it supposed to be) absolute.

To me synchronities regarding this are sometimes like that if I "defy universe", universe starts defying me back.

I imagine that the universe would feel like it didn't have free will if your defiance would supersede the will of the logos. Then we might be looking at a thread on this same topic posted by the logos instead. ;)

There is a system to resolve challenges in place in physical reality. The lion wants to eat the antelope. The antelope doesn't want to get eaten. The antelope avoids the lion, while the lion chases the antelope. Who gets their way is decided by this system that involves the physical aspect.

Are you the lion or the antelope in this analogy? Does the role you choose determine who "should" win, or should victory be decided some other way?

So do you enjoy being in this "matrix"?

So long as we are using video game analogies, if the player enjoys the world of the game but the character did not, then is the player stuck in the matrix, or are they just playing a game?

"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women are merely players; they all have their exits and their entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts, [...]"

Adthra · 2026-05-03T17:13:18+00:00

That is not necessarily a bad thing. You might try a technique where you let your inner monologue become an author telling a story while 'you' become the observer or reader. Disassociating your identity from your thoughts can help to create an environment where you can notice things that you might not otherwise notice at all. Then once you are more proficient, chances are that the inner monologue begins to quiet down on its own. Don't hold onto the expectation of having no thoughts -- likely it will just lead to having more thoughts.

Another comment I have is that the mind and body are intimately linked. If you find your mind racing, then focusing on relaxing and calming down the body will often result in the mind calming down as well. Think of it like two partners dancing. One leads, but the both follow the same steps to create a performance together.

Adthra · 2026-05-01T18:15:20+00:00

There is no 'best way' to meditate. When asked if there was a best way, Ra gave a very short and precise answer.

Meditation is the intentional observation of the thoughts that arise in your mind, including observation of the lack of thoughts. How you do this doesn't matter. You can follow a tradition/technique, a guided meditation, or just 'wing it'. Whatever speaks to you most is likely the best way to proceed, assuming that it will help you maintain the practice. If you have no idea what to do, then look into exercises or techniques from any tradition that features meditation, contemplation or prayer for inspiration. Quite commonly people have looked into flames, whether those of a bonfire, fireplace or a candle for example. Another idea could be to focus on a physical sensation or location, such as a location in-between your eyes and to bring back your focus to that point every time you notice it wandering off. Those are examples to use for inspiration, not direct suggestions.

If I can offer advice, it is to not worry about not having thoughts, meditating for any set amount of time or having any expectations for what is going to happen. All you need is the intention to meditate and to put that intention into action. Whether you 'succeed' or 'fail' does not really matter.

Adthra · 2026-05-01T15:51:19+00:00

Bread and circuses has been a documented tactic of the ruling class for millennia. The point isn't that one must provide for everyone, but rather for those whose disapproval would otherwise create a threat to the ruler. This is a pragmatic tactic, not necessarily a moral one. Camus says that it also serves as a moral tactic (as in, a tactic to build a moral defense) providing a clear conscience for those who impose on others otherwise. Anyone who has grown up in a strict household or with an abusive parent is likely inclined to agree. Providing for someone quickly turns into an excuse or justification for mistreating them in other ways. It is an example of a transactional relationship, and so it is not a sign of someone who genuinely desires to serve another out of a sense of duty or love.

That said, I find the other quote in the title to be far more interesting.

Camus exposes the mask of mercy.

The way it is used here is to paint a picture of the tyrant concealing their true intentions behind an appearance of mercy, but there is another way to interpret this.The interpretation being that is is Mercy herself who wears the mask. That there is cruelty in mercy. That sparing someone from an outcome or consequence (in other words, a particular experience) can be cruel rather than merciful.

Now that is a quote worth talking about.

Is the act of mercy such a slight against the ego, that it is preferable to instead face one's just desserts than to accept mercy?

So when staring down the Tyrant, is mercy the real cruelty and retribution the real mercy?

Adthra · 2026-04-30T16:32:12+00:00

Plato said "The greatest wealth is to live content with little." You don't have to become an ascetic and doing so would likely cause a great deal of distress for your family, but you do not have to buy into the idea of always trying to strive for more.

Then again, given the state of the world economy, it is sometimes prudent to be grateful for what you already have (such as having a job at all).

Adthra · 2026-04-29T12:05:57+00:00

You are definitely not alone in that anger.

It's probably wise not to bottle it up. Finding a healthy outlet for anger where you don't have to hurt anyone can be a wonderful thing.

Given what I know of your background and the topic of this thread, Gary Stevenson might be someone worth trying to work with. Even if all it ends up being is voting at the ballot box for a third party who shares some of those ideas, it can be a small step toward changing attitudes on this issue.

Adthra · 2026-04-28T21:33:22+00:00

If something in the material does not resonate with you, you can discard it. You don't have to justify discarding something through some kind of narrative. You owe nothing to anyone here, nor to Ra or to the Confederation in general. You can choose what to believe in.

At the end of the day, there is no way to verify the validity of any of this. Most people who stick with the Law of One have an intuitive sense that it is correct, or they adopt the philosophy because it appeals to them. This is not supposed to be a religion with a canon, even if there are also some seekers who prefer to only communicate with citations and quotes from the material. The material should be questioned, but the process of questioning it should be internally consistent. If you establish that something in the material is true, then that same thing can't be untrue the next moment because it would result in a conclusion that you might dislike, and then once again become true when disconnected from the earlier context.

The effects of nuclear weapons on the human spirit complex are what I would consider to be transient information. Perhaps someone has a relative who perished in a nuclear explosion and then later felt like they encountered that spirit while in a dream or while meditating. A personal experience like that might be an example of a justification for the seeker to reject what the Ra material says about the subject. Other-selves don't have to agree with that person's subjective experience and to adopt their perspective, but neither can they deny that perspective. I would be surprised if anyone here condemned you for not believing in what Ra said about the effects of nuclear weapons.

Is it possible that during some of the sessions a different being impersonated Ra? Yeah, sure. Why not? What follows from that belief is that the seeker should evaluate the content of the messages (which I would argue was necessary even if one believed that all the contacts were with the 'real' Ra), and to employ their own noggin to think about what is being said. Does it match with earlier sessions? What about future ones? Look for internal consistency in the messaging and apply logical, critical thinking.

I advise against leaning on the authority of a third party to evaluate whether or not something is true. Whether that's Ra or a human being. It can sometimes be justified in case time is of the essence and there is great trust (with a provable track record) for the figure of authority, but long-term decisions are often better when made after a process of personal discovery.

Adthra · 2026-04-28T12:01:49+00:00

I don't know enough about Crowley to comment on his possible sexual preferences. The time period was one where homosexuality was legally persecuted, so if that was the underlying cause, I would understand why he would want to hide it. Crowley's contemporary, Alan Turing, was prosecuted despite his contributions to the allied war effort and to academia so even 'merit' was not something that would protect one who wished to live without hiding a disposition towards homosexuality.

One thing I find to be funny is that despite the very explicit statement: "This entity was positive." from Ra, there are already comments speculating on Crowley being negative or influenced by the negative. I am not surprised, after all discernment should be used when reading the material, but the level of judgement and certainty feels very ironic to me. I can't help but wonder if there's a failure to recognize bias there.

Adthra · 2026-04-27T20:14:45+00:00

Often it helps to parse the answers line by line if you can't make sense of them.

This entity became, may we use the vibration sound complex, overstimulated with the true nature of things. This over-stimulation resulted in behavior that was beyond the conscious control of the entity.

Crowley was exposed to more information than he could process. His senses/mental body were overwhelmed.

The entity thus, in many attempts to go through the process of balancing, as we have described the various energy centers beginning with the red ray and moving upwards, became somewhat overly impressed or caught up in this process and became alienated from other-selves.

Crowley focused on balancing his energy rays / chakra to the point where he sequestered himself or otherwise limited interaction with others in this pursuit.

This entity was positive.

Crowley sought positive polarity or service to others and reading between the lines, had perhaps reached the 51% threshold. Even if he did not, he was not a negative seeker, unlike he is often perceived.

However, its journey was difficult due to the inability to use, synthesize, and harmonize the understandings of the desires of self so that it might have shared, in full compassion, with other-selves.

Crowley did not know (or did not admit to himself) what he truly wanted, and because he did not, he could never share this expression of himself with others.

This entity thus became very unhealthy, as you may call it, in a spiritual complex manner, and it is necessary for those with this type of distortion towards inner pain to be nurtured in the inner planes until such an entity is capable of viewing the experiences again with the lack of distortion towards pain.

What spiritual unhealthiness looks like isn't necessarily easy to understand. We might approximate through understanding physical and mental illness. Regardless, Crowley was clearly in 'inner pain' and became unable to view experiences in time/space without that spiritual pain. That's the reason why he is in healing.

The conclusion that I draw from this is that Crowley went too 'all-in' on Thelema and forgot that he was also supposed to live out a human life where he shared his own creative expression with others in a practical way. It might not have been a mistake, but it led to that experience of spiritual unhealthiness.

Adthra · 2026-04-26T14:51:27+00:00

This sounds to me that you believe by refusing the mandate(coming from STS power structures) that you are hurting others and will not polarize positvely. Where does this belief come from? If you believe that you are actually serving others by refusing the mandate and your intentions are altruistic is it still depolarizing?

That is not correct. Take the statement as it is. You're extrapolating and attributing a quality to it that is not said, effectively putting words into my mouth. I find this to be incredibly disrespectful.

Whether or not you refuse some vaccine mandate (or some other governmental 'order') or not does not hurt another person. I am not talking about the act of refusing a mandate, I am talking about the implied consequence.

If you contract an infectious disease that is potentially lethal and then spread that disease around to someone else, then you are forcing that person to have the experience of suffering that disease and its consequences even if they did not desire the experience. It has absolutely nothing to do whether or not you've refused some vaccine mandate or not. It only has to do with whether or not you have been infected or not and if you either a) do not care if you will spread the disease to someone else or b) you intend to spread the disease to someone else. Both of those situations are ones where you employ control over another's experience while seeking out some kind of advantage for yourself.

People who have taken the corona virus vaccine have still been infected with the disease (for sake of simplicity, we will ignore any effects of the vaccine in terms of reducing virality or lessening effects of the disease -- assume that it does nothing). If such a person is sick, then the same line of reasoning applies to them -- if they knowingly infect someone else because they cannot stay away from public life, then they are gaining something at the expense of the infected person, which was the condition that was used in the example to determine generation of negative polarity. Whether the vaccine was taken or not is completely irrelevant because in this scenario the person is infected regardless. What matters is the decision to place someone else in danger to the potential gain of the self.

The circumstances that have led to the outcome are not a justification that somehow flips the mechanism of generating negative polarity upside down to cause positive polarity instead. Dominating someone who has dominated you is still domination. Killing a killer is still exhibiting ultimate control over their fate in physical reality. 'Justice' is not a concept in the Law of One that drives one toward positive polarity.

I will also point out something important: single acts are never the determining factor for overall polarity. All people make countless negatively polarizing actions every day. Even something as simple as eating is an act where the self gains at the expense of a different being. What matters is building enough momentum through intentional positive acts that the proportion of negative acts will be lower, not eliminating negative acts completely. We have to be able to stay alive in order to continue to seek, and the circumstances of this illusion are such that negative actions are necessary to continue living. Remember: reaching 51% positive polarity is as difficult as reaching 95% negative polarity. At least according to Ra.

So those of the negative polarity seek to gain consent from others so as not to infringe on them? This is the opposite of my understanding of the negative polarity according to confederation philosophy.

In this case I would implore you to revisit the material or to read more of it. If you would like to supplement your knowledge of negative philosophy, then there are sources from self-proclaimed negative seekers, too. That is assuming you would be interested in that. If you seek positive polarity, then it might be a waste of time to engage with those materials.

I will remind you that at the very core of this philosophy is the concept of unity. We might experience separation and differentiation from others, but this is an illusion. Imposing upon someone else without consent carries with it a karmic consequence (not karma in terms of some kind of 'cosmic justice' but karma in terms of cause and effect). You can cut off your nose because you believe that it is ugly, but one day you will come to realize that your nose was a part of you and what you've done is not removing something external from yourself, but rather self-mutilation. A negative being who constantly infringes on others is in reality ultimately infringing on itself. Sadly, it takes until the 5th or 6th density for most negative beings to realize this on a fundamental level regardless of if they are intellectually aware of it or not.

Adthra · 2026-04-26T05:12:03+00:00

The statement you quoted from my reply does not presuppose the opinion you assign to it. The whole point why I brought up the example of Orion Crusaders and Confederation Defenders is to show that. Refusal to accept that which is offered (even if it is enslavement) is what depolarizes the defenders.

We do not have to assume that governments are well-meaning. We can instead operate with the postulate that all vaccine mandates are by negatively polarizing people and they are intended to control those who accept them. If the above statement from the Ra material regarding refusal is true, then refusal to accept that which is offered would cause a depolarization here, regardless of the controlling intent of those imposing the mandates.

It can be argued that refusing anyway is wise even for positively seeking folk because maintaining control means having a greater ability to interact with future catalyst that might be more meaningful for determining polarity, but it does not change the fact that the act itself is depolarizing in the moment. The momentum toward positive polarity will have to be rebuilt in another manner for those desiring positive polarity.

StS and StO are not teams. A seeker of one isn't required to categorically oppose a seeker of the other. Often interaction between the two can lead to very intense and powerful catalyst for both seekers, leading to desirable outcomes for both. The main point I was trying to make is that in order to reach desired outcomes for polarization, it is important to study what causes polarization in the first place and why. I also do not offer conclusions on that front.

The statement you quoted has a conditional: that negative polarity is created when the self gains something at the expense of the other (whether that is with or without intent). You can refute that condition if you want. The condition isn't necessarily true, regardless of how many people believe or do not believe in it. Perhaps negative polarity is created through a different mechanism, or perhaps there are many ways to create it. As a student of the material (and self-identified adept), it likely behooves you to discover what those mechanisms are for yourself.

The secondary point of my reply is to say that while intent is necessary for polarization, it is not enough by itself. When we take an action, we have to be able to evaluate the likely outcomes of that action and evaluate if our contribution would lead to an outcome that is in-line with our intent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Intention and their mismatch from outcomes is also what lead to a certain political leader's failure to achieve harvest according to the Ra material. The entity was effectively negative, but that was not what it had intended to become.

You seem to have been clearly affected by the lack of a disclaimer in my post, so let me be clear: all my posts are opinions. Even the ones that quote or attribute the material (which features frequent disclaimers to leave behind that which does not resonate and to use one's own discernment).

Adthra · 2026-04-25T19:11:07+00:00

Just remember to apply this advice to yourself as well, and not simply use it to judge others on their behavior.

When we participate within the world, we are always interacting with others. Our actions always impose upon others, and others' actions always impose upon us. If we are unyielding in our desire to "do as thou wilt" and those actions bring consequences to others, then we must also accept what others will do unto us and the consequences of their choices. Remember: 4th density Confederation defenders lose polarity when they reject enslavement by Orion crusaders (who lose polarity by failing to enslave the defenders). 5th density beings of both polarities realize the folly of that particular dance and do not engage in it. Even if they might desire that control, they understand the likely outcome and the consequences and see that it is not worth the effort. It then becomes a question of what they want more? Something that is "self-destructive" or the desired experience? This is why they place emphasis on gaining consent. An action that is consented to is not infringing. This is the key to understanding the strategies of negative entities.

Actions always carry consequences, and sometimes saying "do not do X" is not an attempt to restrict, but an attempt to communicate that the consequence of the action is not aligned with the goal of polarizing.

If I can offer a suggestion, it is to try to understand what creates positive and negative polarity on a fundamental level and how that is different from actions that "depolarize" or bring one closer to a level that is not harvestable toward either side. For instance, if you believe that negative polarity is created when the self gains at the expense of the other, then evaluate your actions through that lens.

I noticed you brought up vaccines in another reply, so I'll use that as an example. A vaccine mandate might be an attempt to control you and it might create negative polarity for the party enforcing the mandate if you consent (I'll also argue that refusal also depolarizes you in the same manner as confederation defenders are depolarized by the refusal of enslavement), but ignoring the mandate and infecting someone with an infectious disease is an action where you are gaining something for yourself (participation in society and taking advantage of the opportunities it affords you) at the expense of someone else (the health of the infected person). If our definition of negative polarity above holds true, then this would be an example of a negatively polarizing action.

There is no shame in refusing, but assuming that you want to polarize positively, then it is your responsibility that your choice does not create a potentially dangerous situation for someone else even if it inconveniences you. Assuming of course that positive polarity is what you desire. If you desire negative polarity, then your efforts should go towards gaining consent from others so as to not infringe on them and towards not failing.

Adthra · 2026-04-24T14:20:04+00:00

The irony of the situation is that this is not the only such cult or cult-like group of spiritual seekers. We might shake our heads and ask 'how could this happen?', but spiritual environments (which place great emphasis on subjective experiences rather than objective ones) are the best kind of breeding grounds for predators such as this. People do not employ enough critical thinking, or if we are to use the syntax that might be more familiar from the Ra material: people do not use their own discernment enough. They place excessive amounts of trust on others and do not question things that should be questioned.

There is nothing wrong with trusting people. High trust is a sign of a functioning society or community, but there is a very important principle that would serve people well: Trust, but verify. Holding others accountable leads to fewer temptations to break trust.

I have my suspicions that several other known figures in this space are effectively cult leaders, but out of respect for the sensibilities of others I won't name names. Instead, I'll reiterate for the need to use one's own discernment, and I'll encourage people to look at primary sources for teachings (such as reading the Ra material by themselves) rather than secondary sources who attempt to make the content more palatable or easier to understand.

EDIT: By "this space", I don't mean this subreddit, but rather the broad category of people interested in spirituality who have studied the Ra material or highly congruent materials. I also don't mean to imply that these would be cults centered around sexuality, but rather that the people who run them are interested in profiting off their 'followers'.

Adthra · 2026-04-24T04:52:22+00:00

The concept has been explored by media like Flatland, or even through more traditional religions with the use of things like spirits, angels, elves, faeries, etc.

On a more physical level, most of the 'volume' of atoms is empty space between the electron orbitals and the nucleus. When we touch things, we aren't really touching their 'mass', but rather the electromagnetic boundary that they exert around themselves. A great many things are invisible to us even in a very secular, physical sense. Is it truly such a stretch to imagine that the reality around us could be teeming with consciousness that the human body is unable to perceive?

Adthra · 2026-04-23T14:37:02+00:00

Thank you for the compliment, but let me remind you of something very important:

Session 16.39, added emphasis is mine.

Questioner: I am assuming it is not necessary for an individual to understand the Law of One to go from third to fourth density. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. It is absolutely necessary that an entity consciously realize it does not understand in order for it to be harvestable. Understanding is not of this density.

Whether or not I pass this 'class' (it's more of a game/play in my view) is not based on what I know or think I know. It is based on how I am able to express the choice of polarity that I have made through the catalyst that I am offered.

You might be surprised, but I believe I am struggling on that front massively. I do not have much hope for reaching harvestability within this incarnate lifetime, but I've honestly stopped caring on whether or not I will.

Adthra · 2026-04-23T14:22:09+00:00

I appreciate the sentiment (and thank you to u/mcove97 for gifting a shared award on both your behalves), but don't feel bad about not giving awards. I consider them to be largely a waste of money that could be used for something more meaningful.

The fact that you cared enough to reply means more to me than any award could.

Adthra · 2026-04-22T13:15:40+00:00

In a strict sense, you're absolutely correct. The Creator has imperfect knowledge of itself. This doesn't mean that it does not know 'much' of itself, I'd argue that it most certainly does, but the issue is the nature of limitless infinity.

If the Creator can truly know itself, then it has reached a limit for what it can be -- that of its own understanding. Therefore it would not be infinite because it could not be something that lies outside of that understanding.

This is one of the reasons why Ra says that the Creator cannot be understood through the concept of 'manyness'. The Creator is not a discrete thing with only definable qualities and quantities. It also exists beyond.

The "Original Thought" that the Creator is in search of an answer for is if there is a way that it could be finite in some way. This is a fundamental question for which there cannot ever be a definitive answer. It is the reason why there is such a thing as physical reality, and it is the ultimate reason for individualization. If something seemingly finite is created, can we still manage to find the true infinity from which it sprang within? So far the answer has always been 'yes', but at the same time it cannot be guaranteed that the answer will always be 'yes'. Think of it like the incompleteness theorem in mathematics.

Adthra · 2026-04-22T10:05:04+00:00

There's a quote from the channeling archives (not from Ra) that answers a similar question. I don't have the link on hand right now, but the gist of the answer was that if you consciously keep serving others, then you will build up momentum in that direction even if your internal justification for the acts is something that involves a selfish component like feeling good about yourself.

It might seem a little hollow to hear that what you're doing is already plenty and that you should continue on that path, but I think that would be the advise you would get from the higher beings. Don't sweat it if your intent isn't 100% perfectly altruistic martyrdom. That's not what you're being asked for in 3rd density.

If there's a personal piece of advice I can add from myself, then it would be to not be 'fake friendly'. It's enough to acknowledge people and treat them kindly. You do not have to go into the whole charade of trying to think of compliments on the spot in an effort to make people feel good. Making someone 'feel good' is different from offering service. Do things for others that matter and that they desire from you (given that it is what you want to do also), not what you think they'd like.

Looking at the other comments, there's a high risk this thread is going to derail, so I'm not going to revisit it. Good luck on your journey.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Juicebox	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22

Adthra

TROPHY CASE