Search type: any / all / phrase.
Sort by: relevance / session.
96.15 Questioner: I planned to re-draw the tarot cards eliminating extraneous additions by those who came after Ra’s initial giving and I would like quickly to go through those things that I intend to eliminate from each card we’ve gone over and ask Ra if there is anything else that should be eliminated to make the cards as they were when they were originally drawn, before the astrological and other appendages were added.
I would eliminate all of the letters around the edge of the card with the possible exception of the number of the card— one, two, three, etc. That would be the case for all of the cards, I think— the exterior lettering and numbering.
In Card Number One I would eliminate the star at the upper right hand corner; eliminate the wand in the Magician’s hand. I understand that the sphere remains but I am not really sure where it should be. Would Ra comment on that please?
Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, the elimination of letters is acceptable. Secondly, the elimination of stars is acceptable in all cases. Thirdly, the elimination of the wand is appropriate. Fourthly, the sphere may be seen to be held by the thumb and index and second finger.
Fifthly, we would note that it is not possible to offer what you may call a pure deck, if you would use this term, of tarot due to the fact that when these images were first drawn there was already distortion in various and sundry ways, mostly cultural.
Sixthly, although it is good to view the images without the astrological additions, it is to be noted that the more general positions, phases, and characteristics of each concept complex are those which are significant. The removal of all distortion is unlikely and, to a great extent, unimportant.
78.33 Questioner: It just seemed to me that since the planets were an outgrowth of the Logos and since the archetypical mind was the foundation for the experience that the planets of this Logos would be in some way related. We will certainly follow your suggestion.
I have been trying to get a foothold into an undistorted doorway, you might say, into the archetypical mind. It seems to me that everything that I have read having to do with archetypes is, to some degree or another, distorted by those who have written and the fact that our language is not really capable of description.
You have spoken of the Magician as a basic archetype and that this seems to have been carried through from the previous octave. Would this then be, if there is an order, the first archetypical concept of this Logos?
Ra: I am Ra. We would first respond to your confusion as regards the various writings upon the archetypical mind. You may well consider the very informative difference between a thing in itself and its relationships or functions. There is much study of archetype which is actually the study of functions, relationships, and correspondences. The study of planets, for instance, is an example of archetype seen as function. However, the archetypes are, first and most profoundly, things in themselves and the pondering of them and their purest relationships with each other should be the most useful foundation for the study of the archetypical mind.
We now address your query as to the archetype which is the Matrix of the Mind. As to its name, the name of Magician is understandable when you consider that consciousness is the great foundation, mystery, and revelation which makes this particular density possible. The self-conscious entity is full of the magic of that which is to come. It may be considered first, for the mind is the first of the complexes to be developed by the student of spiritual evolution.
The original Law of One books are copyright ©1982, 1984, 1998 L/L Research. The Ra Contact books are copyright ©2018 L/L Research and Tobey Wheelock.
This site copyright ©2003–2024 Tobey Wheelock.
Questions? Comments? Email me: tw at law of one dot info.