Sorted by relevance. Sort by session.
28.1 ▶ Questioner: I may be backtracking a little bit and make a few false starts today because I think we are at possibly the most important part of what we are doing in trying to make it apparent through questioning how everything is one, and how it comes from one intelligent infinity. This is difficult for me to do, so please bear with my errors in questioning.
The concept that I have right now of the process, using both what you have told me and some of Dewey Larson’s material having to do with the physics of the process, I have the concept that intelligent infinity expands outward from all locations everywhere. It expands outward in every direction uniformly like the surface of a balloon or a bubble expanding outward from every point everywhere. It expands outward at what’s called unit velocity or the velocity of light. This is Larson’s idea of the progression of what he calls space/time. Is this concept correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This concept is incorrect as is any concept of the one intelligent infinity. This concept is correct in the context of one particular Logos, or Love, or focus of this Creator which has chosen Its, shall we say, natural laws and ways of expressing them mathematically and otherwise.
The one undifferentiated intelligent infinity, unpolarized, full and whole, is the macrocosm of the mystery-clad being. We are messengers of the Law of One. Unity, at this approximation of understanding, cannot be specified by any physics but only be activated or potentiated intelligent infinity due to the catalyst of free will. This may be difficult to accept. However, the understandings we have to share begin and end in mystery.
39.4 ▶ Questioner: I will then continue now with the general questioning, attempting to find a way into a line of questioning which will get us into an area of understanding non-transient functions which may be worked upon by us and others to raise our consciousness and I may make several mistakes here in trying to find a way into this questioning. I apologize in advance if my questioning is misleading. I notice that everything seems… or most of the basic things seem to be divided into units which total seven. In looking at a transcript by Henry Puharich from “The Nine” I found a statement by The Nine where they say, “If we get seven times the electrical equivalent of the human body then it would result in sevenon of the mass of electricity.” Could you explain this?
Ra: I am Ra. To explain this is beyond the abilities of your language. We shall, however, make an attempt to address this concept.
As you are aware, in the beginning of the creations set up by each Logos, there are created the complete potentials, both electrical, in the sense of the one you call Larson, and metaphysical. This metaphysical electricity is as important in the understanding, shall we say, of this statement as is the concept of electricity.
This concept, as you are aware, deals with potentiated energy. The electron has been said to have no mass but only a field. Others claim a mass of infinitesimal measure. Both are correct. The true mass of the potentiated energy is the strength of the field. This is also true metaphysically.
However, in your present physical system of knowledge it is useful to take the mass number of the electron in order to do work that you may find solutions to other questions about the physical universe. In such a way, you may conveniently consider each density of being to have a greater and greater spiritual mass. The mass increases, shall we say, significantly but not greatly until the gateway density. In this density the summing up, the looking backwards— in short, all the useful functions of polarity have been used. Therefore, the metaphysical electrical nature of the individual grows greater and greater in spiritual mass.
For an analog one may observe the work of the one known as Albert who posits the growing to infinity of mass as this mass approaches the speed of light. Thus the seventh-density being, the completed being, the Creator who knows Itself, accumulates mass and compacts into the One Creator once again.
78.8 ▶ Questioner: OK. Thank you. I am going to go back to an earlier time, if you could call it that, in the evolution to try to establish a very fundamental base for some of the concepts that seem to be the foundation of everything that we experience here so that we can more fully examine the basis of our evolution.
I am guessing that in our Milky Way Galaxy (that is, the major galaxy with billions of stars that we find ourselves in) that the progress of evolution was from the center outward toward the rim and that in the early evolution of this galaxy the first distortion was not extended down past the sub-Logos simply because it was not thought of or not conceived and that this extension of the first distortion, which created the polarization that we experience, was something that occurred at what we would call a later time, or as the evolution progressed outward from the center of the galaxy. Am I in any way correct with this statement?
Ra: I am Ra. You are correct.
78.26 ▶ Questioner: The choice of polarity being the unique circumstance, shall I say, for the archetypical basis for the evolution of consciousness in our particular experience indicates to me that we have arrived, through a long process of the Creator knowing Itself, we’ve arrived at a position of present or maximum efficiency for the design of a process of experience. That design for maximum efficiency is in the roots of consciousness and is the archetypical mind and is a product of everything that has gone before. There are, unquestionably, relatively pure archetypical concepts for the seven concepts for mind, body, and spirit. I feel that the language that we have for these is somewhat inadequate.
However, we will continue to attempt to understand, and that is a poor word also, the foundation for this and I am hoping that I have laid the foundation with some degree of accuracy in attempting to set a background for the development of the archetypes of our Logos. Have I left out anything or made any errors, or could you make any comments on my attempt to lay a background for the construction that our Logos used for the archetypes?
Ra: I am Ra. Your queries are thoughtful.
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.
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 ©2003–2018 Tobey Wheelock.
Questions? Comments? Email me: tw at law of one dot info.