Bring4th

How do you define Unity Consciousness with regard to the Law of One. Are they one and the same? I am trying to clarify this for my understanding. To me they are the same, 'unity consciousness' being the newer term so to speak.

Well, I guess you would call "the Law of One" a "philosophy of unity consciousness".

(01-06-2015, 01:59 PM)Enyiah Wrote: [ -> ]How do you define Unity Consciousness with regard to the Law of One. Are they one and the same? I am trying to clarify this for my understanding. To me they are the same, 'unity consciousness' being the newer term so to speak.

There is a great range of interpretation for both these terms. Where they may be synonymous or equivalent for one user of these terms, they may be very different for another. Further, the meanings of "unity consciousness" and "the Law of One" may shift somewhat depending on context.

I would ask what they mean to you?

I would also ask whether you mean the Law of One material or the Law of One Law of One, the law that can only be approximated by words.

If the former, I really like Tanner's answer.

If the latter, here is one of Ra's two basic definitions of the "Law of One":

The Law of One, though beyond the limitations of name, as you call vibratory sound complexes, may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.

"Unity consciousness" sounds like it ought to embrace the same vision or reality.

I would ask what they mean to you?


I would also ask whether you mean the Law of One material or the Law of One Law of One, the law that can only be approximated by words.

My thought about the Law of One as equal to Unity consciousness would be put in a *In the Beginning there was* concept.  Unity consciousness can be more individualized yet still remain in unity consciousnes because *In the Beginning there was*.

At this point I have only begun to read the 'material', I'm not sure how to deal with what I am reading.  I have a lot of questions and have decided to re-read Book 1 over again before I ask questions as to the content.

The Law of One, though beyond the limitations of name, as you call vibratory sound complexes, may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.

My interpretation of the above definition would start with *In the Beginning there was*.....The Law of One etc.  How can I view the state of this planet  as saying there is no right or wrong, no disharmony etc.?  And with regard to Unity Conscious humanity has yet to arrive...although *In the Beginning there was*!

I appreciate the opportunity to voice my thoughts and thank-you for your comments.

I never considered Law of One to be unity consciousness, but then things don't usually click for me.

Quote:My thought about the Law of One as equal to Unity consciousness would be put in a *In the Beginning there was* concept.  Unity consciousness can be more individualized yet still remain in unity consciousnes because *In the Beginning there was*.

Of what value or meaning does, "in the beginning there was", add to the formulation?

Not for or against it, just wondering your position.

I do have a thought, though. "Beginning" may imply time, and that may confuse contemplation of infinity, eternity, unity, and oneness.

Time and Space are, according to this philosophy, constructs. They are systems of illusion through which evolution proceeds.

Within space and time it seems that there are beginnings and endings, but infinity/eternity being "outside", as it were, of time and space - that is to say, time-less and space-less - they don't have a chronology, or beginnings, or ends.

Party why it makes infinity impossible to grasp with the intellectual mind which is hardwired for, and indeed derivative of, space and time.

However, to the extent that you are describing events that happen in some sort of sequence or order, "beginning" has a lot of applicability. And Ra does describe what we might consider a "beginning" to creation, that is, infinity becoming aware.

It is a mystery that sends the mind into disorienting backspins, and a profound sense of awe.

Quote:At this point I have only begun to read the 'material', I'm not sure how to deal with what I am reading.  I have a lot of questions and have decided to re-read Book 1 over again before I ask questions as to the content.

You'll find lots of other willing to chip in their insights into this similar questions here. Keep asking!

Quote:How can I view the state of this planet  as saying there is no right or wrong, no disharmony etc.?

My limited, fallible take on this is that terms of "right" and "wrong" do have utility, meaning, and purpose within a limited range of human experience: where morality and ethics intersect our decisions and perceptions. Our realm of experience, however, is a sub-set of a much greater reality.

From the greater perspective, nothing is ultimately "wrong"; conversely and consequently, nothing that is "right". Whatever individualized portions of consciousness decide to do with their consciousness - including the greatest distortions and perversions and inflicted sufferings and destructions - the Creator is experiencing itself in its full range of free will and infinite variety.

That an experience is *possible* indicates to my boxed-in-brain that it must be desired, you might say, by the Creator.

It's a good question with much greater headway that can be made by greater minds than mine.

Good luck Enyiah!

Quote:Of what value or meaning does, "in the beginning there was", add to the formulation?


Not for or against it, just wondering your position.

I do have a thought, though. "Beginning" may imply time, and that may confuse contemplation of infinity, eternity, unity, and oneness.

Time and Space are, according to this philosophy, constructs. They are systems of illusion through which evolution proceeds.

Within space and time it seems that there are beginnings and endings, but infinity/eternity being "outside", as it were, of time and space - that is to say, time-less and space-less - they don't have a chronology, or beginnings, or ends.

Party why it makes infinity impossible to grasp with the intellectual mind which is hardwired for, and indeed derivative of, space and time.


However, to the extent that you are describing events that happen in some sort of sequence or order, "beginning" has a lot of applicability. And Ra does describe what we might consider a "beginning" to creation, that is, infinity becoming aware.

It is a mystery that sends the mind into disorienting backspins, and a profound sense of awe.

Actually what I was trying to refer to as ''in the Beginning there was'' this interpretation meaning:  The Original Idea/Originally there was Unity Consciousness which is the principle of The Law of One. 

Quote:My limited, fallible take on this is that terms of "right" and "wrong" do have utility, meaning, and purpose within a limited range of human experience: where morality and ethics intersect our decisions and perceptions. Our realm of experience, however, is a sub-set of a much greater reality.


From the greater perspective, nothing is ultimately "wrong"; conversely and consequently, nothing that is "right". Whatever individualized portions of consciousness decide to do with their consciousness - including the greatest distortions and perversions and inflicted sufferings and destructions - the Creator is experiencing itself in its full range of free will and infinite variety.

Dare I say that I am personally very *put off* by Creator's Will to experience itself on the negative side of distortion.  Call me naive or saintly if you will, but this realization makes me feel quite sad.  Am I too embroiled in the illusion?!  I think I am a little confused.

Is there a place within us when this ''Law of One'' starts to make sense somewhat and one's relationship to the ''Law of One'' is understood and integrated?

Thank-you for your thoughts.

(01-07-2015, 09:50 AM)Enyiah Wrote: [ -> ]The Law of One, though beyond the limitations of name, as you call vibratory sound complexes, may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.

My interpretation of the above definition would start with *In the Beginning there was*.....The Law of One etc.  How can I view the state of this planet  as saying there is no right or wrong, no disharmony etc.? 

Here is my follow on...

In the beginning there was a sound so loud and full of Love that a new universe came into being. "Let there be Light" was the intention behind this noise and so this focus, or new beginning, sparked an almighty BANG!. And so our Universe was born

From a scientific perspective 1-3% of the crackling noise we here when changing radio stations on an analogue receiver (called 'white noise') is the sonic reverberation of that moment in time (approximately 14.7-14.8 billion years ago).

"White noise"? Hmmm... If Light could be defined, or at least approximated as, "white", then this conveys to me a blank canvass, if you will. A new protocol, or a perspective that all is well and all is true, or renewed.

That said, Ra specify that a more technical term for this primal distortion of 'The Law of One' as "Limitless Light".

And so here we all are together, submersed in a sea of contrasting concepts and feelings, or currents that tug us this way, then that way.

So how do we float, remain anchored or ready ourselves to respond to the turbulent waves that relentlessly grace our shores?

One of my favourite Ra quotes goes like this. "...consciousness is the microcosm of the Law of One"

According to Ra there were approximately 65 million wanderers (early 1980's) that had incarnated into 3rd density. That equates to approximately 1 in a 100 humans originating from a higher perspective of awareness, or density.

Therefore the more of us that realise who we are, the more we transform or lighten the planetary consciousness. To me it is merely a way of thinking or a clue to recognising that judging others or moralising the value of another persons actions, as unhelpful.

Internal value judgements colour our aura's that render us as uninviting or unattractive to certain souls that fail to meet our codes of acceptable behaviour.
So if we can embody the ideal that there is no right or wrong (when in our present reality there clearly is), we metaphysically clothe ourselves as physical representatives of the creator in the positive sense, in the earthly 3rd density sense at least. Furthermore, knowing ourselves is transmitted through our eyes, through our demeanour and sense of relaxed posture. Offering ourselves to the world in this context may not yield tangible results, but by Ra's definition at least, It is a notable form of polarisation.

Or put another way, being ourselves is primary, yet simultaneously we are involved in the process of learning how to be.