Sorted by relevance. Sort by session.
76.9 ▶ Questioner: Is there, in Ra’s opinion, any present-day value for the reuse of the tarot as an aid in the evolutionary process?
Ra: I am Ra. We shall repeat information. It is appropriate to study one form of constructed and organized distortion of the archetypical mind in depth in order to arrive at the position of being able to become and to experience archetypes at will. You have three basic choices. You may choose astrology, the twelve signs, as you call these portions of your planet’s energy web, and what has been called the ten planets. You may choose the tarot with its twenty-two so-called Major Arcana. You may choose the study of the so-called Tree of Life with its ten Sephiroth and the twenty-two relationships between the stations.
It is well to investigate each discipline, not as a dilettante, but as one who seeks the touchstone, one who wishes to feel the pull of the magnet. One of these studies will be more attractive to the seeker. Let the seeker then investigate the archetypical mind using, basically, one of these three disciplines. After a period of study, the discipline mastered sufficiently, the seeker may then complete the more important step: that is, the moving beyond the written in order to express in an unique fashion its understanding, if you may again pardon the noun, of the archetypical mind.
81.24 ▶ Questioner: So that I can just get a little idea of what I am talking about, what are the limits of Ra’s travel in the sense of directly experiencing or seeing the activities of various places? Is it solely within this galaxy, and if so, how much of this galaxy? Or does it include some other galaxies?
Ra: I am Ra. Although it would be possible for us to move at will throughout the creation within this Logos, that is to say, the Milky Way Galaxy, so-called, we have moved where we were called to service; these locations being, shall we say, local and including Alpha Centauri, planets of your solar system which you call the Sun, Cepheus, and Zeta Reticuli. To these sub-Logoi we have come, having been called.
71.15 ▶ Questioner: Could you please comment on the accuracy of this statement? I’m going to generally talk about the concept of magic and first define it as the ability to create changes in consciousness at will. Is this an acceptable definition?
Ra: I am Ra. This definition is acceptable in that it places upon the adept the burden it shall bear. It may be better understood by referring back to an earlier query, in your measurement, within this working having to do with the unmanifested self. In magic one is working with one’s unmanifested self in body, in mind, and in spirit; the mixture depending upon the nature of the working.
These workings are facilitated by the enhancement of the activation of the indigo-ray energy center. The indigo-ray energy center is fed, as are all energy centers, by experience but far more than the others is fed by what we have called the disciplines of the personality.
74.4 ▶ Questioner: In a previous session there was a question on the archetypical mind that was not fully answered. I would like to continue with the answer to that question. Could you please continue with that, or would it be necessary for me to read the entire question over again?
Ra: I am Ra. As a general practice it is well to vibrate the query at the same space/time as the answer is desired. However, in this case it is acceptable to us that a note be inserted at this point in your recording of these sound vibratory complexes referring to the location of the query in previous workings.*
The query, though thoughtful, is in some degree falling short of the realization of the nature of the archetypical mind. We may not teach/learn for any other to the extent that we become learn/teachers. Therefore, we shall make some general notations upon this interesting subject and allow the questioner to consider and further refine any queries.
The archetypical mind may be defined as that mind which is peculiar to the Logos of this planetary sphere. Thusly unlike the great cosmic all-mind, it contains the material which it pleased the Logos to offer as refinements to the great cosmic beingness. The archetypical mind, then, is that which contains all facets which may affect mind or experience.
The Magician was named as a significant archetype. However, it was not recognized that this portion of the archetypical mind represents not a portion of the deep subconscious but the conscious mind and more especially the will. The archetype called by some the High Priestess, then, is the corresponding intuitive or subconscious faculty.
Let us observe the entity as it is in relationship to the archetypical mind. You may consider the possibilities of utilizing the correspondences between the mind/body/spirit in microcosm and the archetypical mind/body/spirit closely approaching the Creator. For instance, in your ritual performed to purify this place you use the term “Ve Geburah.” It is a correct assumption that this is a portion or aspect of the One Infinite Creator. However, there are various correspondences with the archetypical mind which may be more and more refined by the adept. “Ve Geburah” is the correspondence of Michael, of Mars, of the positive, of maleness. “Ve Gedulah” has correspondences to Jupiter, to femaleness, to the negative, to that portion of the Tree of Life concerned with Auriel.
We could go forward with more and more refinements of these two entries into the archetypical mind. We could discuss color correspondences, relationships with other archetypes, and so forth. This is the work of the adept, not the teach/learner. We may only suggest that there are systems of study which may address themselves to the aspects of the archetypical mind and it is well to choose one and study carefully. It is more nearly well if the adept go beyond whatever has been written and make such correspondences that the archetype can be called upon at will.
* This question was asked in session 67.
Hide question numbers Show categories Show notes Hide audio
Version (?): Lightly Edited, Relistened, Original
Back to top
The Law of One books are copyright ©1982, 1984, 1998 L/L Research. This site copyright ©2003–2019 Tobey Wheelock.
Questions? Comments? Email me: tw at law of one dot info.