Search type: any / all / phrase.
Sort by: relevance / session.
47.2 Questioner: OK. The question that I was trying to ask at the end of the last session was: Of what value to evolution or experience in the Creator knowing himself are the positive and negative social memory complexes that form starting in fourth density, and why was this planned by the Logos?
Ra: I am Ra. There are inherent incorrectnesses in your query. However, we may answer the main point of it.
The incorrectness lies in the consideration that social memory complexes were planned by the Logos or sub-Logos. This is incorrect, as the unity of the Creator exists within the smallest portion of any material created by Love, much less in a self-aware being.
However, the distortion of free will causes the social memory complex to appear as a possibility at a certain stage of evolution of mind. The purpose, or consideration which causes entities to form such complexes, of these social memory complexes, is a very simple extension of the basic distortion towards the Creator’s knowing of Itself, for when a group of mind/body/spirits become able to form a social memory complex, all experience of each entity is available to the whole of the complex. Thus the Creator knows more of Its creation in each entity partaking of this communion of entities.
77.20 Questioner: In other words you are saying that originally the Logoi that did not choose this free will path did not choose it simply because they had not conceived of it and later Logoi, extending the first distortion farther down through their evolution, experienced it as an outcropping or growth from that extension of the first distortion. Am I correct in saying that?
Ra: I am Ra. Yes.
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.
78.20 Questioner: Then our particular Logos, when it created Its own particular creation, was at some point far down the evolutionary spiral of the experiment with the significator becoming what it was not or in effect, creating the polarity that we strive for in third density, and, therefore was, I am assuming, primarily concerned in the design of the archetypes, in designing them in such a way so as they would create the acceleration of this polarization. Is this in any way correct?
Ra: I am Ra. We would only comment briefly. It is generally correct. You may fruitfully view each Logos and its design as the Creator experiencing Itself. The seed concept of the significator being a complex introduces two things: firstly, the Creator against Creator in one sub-Logos in what you may call dynamic tension; secondly, the concept of free will, once having been made fuller by its extension into the sub-Logoi known as mind/body/spirit complexes, creates and re-creates and continues to create as a function of its very nature.
52.2 Questioner: Thank you. I think that possibly I am on an important point here because it seems to me that the great work in evolution is the discipline of personality, and it seems that we have two types of moving around the universe, one stemming from disciplines of personality, and the other stemming from what you call the slingshot effect. I won’t even get into the sub-light speeds because I don’t consider that too important. And I only consider this material important with respect to the fact that we are investigating discipline of the personality.
Does the use of the slingshot effect for travel, is that a what you might call an intellectual or a left brain type of involvement of understanding rather than a right brain type?
Ra: I am Ra. Your perception on this point is extensive. You penetrate the outer teaching. We prefer not to utilize the terminology of right and left brain due to the inaccuracies of this terminology. Some functions are repetitive or redundant in both lobes, and further, to some entities the functions of the right and left are reversed. However, the heart of the query is worth some consideration.
The technology of which you, as a social complex, are so enamored at this time is but the birthing of the manipulation of the intelligent energy of the sub-Logos which, when carried much further, may evolve into technology capable of using the gravitic effects of which we spoke. We note that this term is not accurate but there is no closer term.
Therefore, the use of technology to manipulate that outside the self is far, far less of an aid to personal evolution than the disciplines of the mind/body/spirit complex resulting in the whole knowledge of the self in the microcosm and macrocosm.
To the disciplined entity, all things are open and free. The discipline which opens the universes opens also the gateways to evolution. The difference is that of choosing either to hitchhike to a place where beauty may be seen or to walk, step by step, independent and free in this independence to praise the strength to walk and the opportunity for the awareness of beauty.
The hitchhiker, instead, is distracted by conversation and the vagaries of the road and, dependent upon the whims of others, is concerned to make the appointment in time. The hitchhiker sees the same beauty but has not prepared itself for the establishment, in the roots of mind, of the experience.
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.