Search type: any / all / phrase.
Sort by: relevance / session.
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.
* See 67.28.
88.17 Questioner: I will make this statement as to my understanding of some of the archetypes and let you correct this statement. It seems to me that the Significator of Mind, Body, and Spirit are acted upon in each of these by the catalyst. This produces Experience which then leads to the Transformation and produces the Great Way. This is the same process for mind, the body, and spirit. The archetypes are just repeated but act in a different way as catalyst because of the differences of mind, body, and spirit. They produce a different type of experience for each because of the differences in the three. The Transformation is slightly different. The Great Way is somewhat different but the archetypes are all basically doing the same thing. They are just acting on three different portions of the mind/body/spirit complex so that we can condense the entire archetypical mind into a way of saying that in making the Significator a complex basically we have provided a way for Catalyst to create Transformation more efficiently. Would you correct my statement, please?
Ra: I am Ra. In your statement correctness is so plaited up with tendrils of the most fundamental misunderstanding that correction of your statement is difficult. We shall make comments and from these comments request that you allow a possible realignment of conceptualization to occur.
The archetypical mind is a great and fundamental portion of the mind complex, one of its most basic elements and one of the richest sources of information for the seeker of the One Infinite Creator. To attempt to condense the archetypes is to make an erroneous attempt. Each archetype is a significant ding an sich*, or thing in itself, with its own complex of concepts. While it is informative to survey the relationships of one archetype to another it can be said that this line of inquiry is secondary to the discovery of the purest gestalt or vision or melody which each archetype signifies to both the intellectual and intuitive mind.
The Significators of Mind, Body, and Spirit complexes are complex in and of themselves, and the archetypes of Catalyst, Experience, Transformation, and the Great Way are most fruitfully viewed as independent complexes which have their own melodies with which they may inform the mind of its nature.
We ask that you consider that the archetypical mind informs those thoughts which then may have bearing upon the mind, the body, or the spirit. The archetypes do not have a direct linkage to body or spirit. All must be drawn up through the higher levels of the subconscious mind to the conscious mind and thence they may flee whither they have been bidden to go. When used in a controlled way they are most helpful. Rather than continue beyond the boundaries of your prior statement we would appreciate the opportunity for your re-questioning at this time so that we may answer you more precisely.
37.3 Questioner: Will you comment on it?
Ra: I am Ra. We shall. Firstly, the choosing of this group to do some work to serve others was of an intensive nature. Each present sacrificed much for no tangible result. Each may search its heart for the type of sacrifice, knowing that the material sacrifices are the least; the intensive commitment to blending into an harmonious group at the apex of sacrifice. Under these conditions we found your vibration. We observed your vibration. It will not be seen often. We do not wish to puff up the pride, but we shall not chaffer* with the circumstances necessary for our particular contact. Thus you have received and we willingly undertake the honor/duty of continuing to offer transmissions of concepts which are, to the best of our abilities, precise in nature and grounded in the attempt to unify many of those things that concern you.
Secondly, the use you make of these transmissions is completely at your discretion. We suggest the flowing of the natural intuitive senses and a minimum of the distortion towards concern. We are content, as we have said, to be able to aid in the evolution of one of your peoples. Whatever efforts you make cannot disappoint us, for that number already exceeds one.
52.10 Questioner: Thank you. Just as something that I am a little inquisitive about, not much importance, but I’d like to make a statement I intuitively see, which may be wrong.
You were speaking of the slingshot effect and that term has puzzled me.
The only thing I can see is that you must put energy into the craft until it approaches the velocity of light and this of course requires more and more and more energy. The time dilation occurs and it seems to me that it would be possible to, by moving at 90° to the direction of travel, somehow change this stored energy in its application of direction or sense so that you move out of space/time into time/space with a 90° deflection. Then the energy would be taken out in time/space and you would re-enter space/time at the end of this energy reversal. Am I in any way correct on this?
Ra: I am Ra. You are quite correct as far as your language may take you and, due to your training, more able than we to express the concept. Our only correction, if you will, would be to suggest that the 90° of which you speak are an angle which may best be understood as a portion of a tesseract*.
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.