Don is asking about the differences between the pyramid experiences in Egypt and South America, and diverts into a query about teach/learning. Ra does answer, but answers a questions with a question, one of the most defuddling and infuriating practices that any teacher can offer a student

Quote:57.29 Questioner: How did this learning process take place in— learning or teaching— take place in the pyramid?

Ra: I am Ra. How does teach/learning and learn/teaching ever take place?

Quote:89.8 Questioner: How many of our years ago was Ra’s third density ended?

Ra: I am Ra. The calculations necessary for establishing this point are difficult since so much of what you call time is taken up before and after third density as you see the progress of time from your vantage point. We may say in general that the time of our enjoyment of the choice-making was approximately 2.6 million of your sun-years in your past. However— we correct this instrument. Your term is billion, 2.6 billion of your years in your past. However, this time, as you call it, is not meaningful for our intervening space/time has been experienced in a manner quite unlike your third-density experience of space/time.

Quote:Research has suggested that Venus may have been habitable as little as 2 billion years ago, over 2.6 billion years after the solar system was formed. As we know there to have been great oceans of water on Venus there would have been more than enough time for life to develop, but a runaway greenhouse effect took hold.

I know very little about the Law of Responsibility. Does this mean that the more we know, the more we're held accountable for?

If I were to pierce the veil, would I have to then act upon the knowledge I received? Does karma automatically increase if you become aware of some unbalanced actions you took in a previous life?

A lot of my spiritual experiences have taught me what I am not. But some, like watching stars being created in the sky when I had eyes to see, represent who I am. So maybe I am a Logos at another level. Maybe I'm a Sohar (the great central sun of a Universe) at some higher level. If I became fully aware of being a great central sun to a Universe, am I held responsible for what I do with this knowledge? I'm talking beyond a simple knowing, into really experiencing.

At some level I'm a star. And at a higher level I'm a great central sun, esentially being the whole Universe.

Is Law of Responsibility like Law of Karma? Karma taught me a hard lesson this past weekend.

in reading the Ra material, it continually amazes me how well-connected the channeling group was to the people around them. Don and Carla, especially, seemed to have an awareness of the 'who's who' of the metaphysical community, and were in close personal contact with many prominent players.

one such individual was Paul Shockley, who asked Jim to relay some questions to Ra. Paul had information of being involved in building the Egyptian pyramids. Could Ra confirm or deny this?

this is the answer given:

Quote:27.1 Questioner: This session I thought we would start Book Two of The Law of One, which will focus on what we consider to be the only important aspect of our being.

However, Jim has felt the obligation to ask two questions that were asked of him by Paul Shockley, and I will ask those two first, in case you are able to answer them before we really get started. First question is: Paul Shockley is presenting channeling— correction, Paul Shockley is presently channeling the same source which Edgar Cayce channeled, and Paul has received information that he took part in the design and construction of the Egyptian pyramids. Can you tell us what his role was in that effort?

Ra: I am Ra. This was in your space/time continuum two periods and two lifetimes. The first of a physical nature working with Confederation entities in what you know of as Atlantis, this approximately thirteen thousand [13,000] of your years ago. This memory, shall we say, being integrated into the unconscious of the mind/body/spirit complex of this entity due to its extreme desire to remember the service of healing and polarization possible by the mechanisms of the crystal and the charged healer.

- -

The second experience being approximately one thousand [1,000] of your years later during which experience this entity prepared, in some part, the consciousness of the people of what you now call Egypt, that they were able to offer the calling that enabled those of our social memory complex to walk among your peoples.

During this life experience this entity was of a priest and teaching nature and succeeded in remembering in semi-distorted form the learn/teachings of the Atlantean pyramidal experiences.

Thus this entity became a builder of the archetypal thought of the Law of One with distortion towards healing which aided our people in bringing this through into a physical manifestation at what you would call a later period in your time measurement.

The purpose of this post is relate the use of naming God in Law of One, to the way this subject is treated in the Abrahamic and Dharmic traditions, in order to understand the underlying philosophy behind both.

In 24.6, Ra refers to an entity as "The one you may called Yahweh". Later in the quote is is said that Yahweh is "Now unnamed". These quotes tell us:

1. Yahweh has now abandoned the use of any name.
2. There is doubt, if in the first place, whether Yahweh was any sort of "True Name" to begin with.

This is consistent with Jewish tradition; Since ancient times, the name has "Yahweh" has no longer spoken, and all instance of it are replaced with "Adonai" meaning lord. In everyday the name of God is abstracted even further to "HaShem" meaning "The Name".

Ra uses both Adonai ("Lord") and "The Creator"

Both Judaism and Islam, additionally, have lists of the Names of God that are used for meditation. It is of critical importance to understand, however, that these are not truly names. They are Epithets/Titles. Think of, for example, The Roman Senate kept giving title after title to Caesar.

Otherwise, Judaism and Islam are Aniconic - not allowing any physical representations of God, or "Idols" as they call them. Some sects of Christianity, such as Catholicism/Orthodox use Idols of Jesus.

Dharmic traditions, of course, do use Idols.

In Dharmic tradition, god is called "Brahman". "Saguna Brahman" or with qualities, describes the use of personal representations of god. There are three ways to represent god.

1. Names, the highest
2. Yantras, such as Shri Yantra, identical to Mandalas in Buddhism. Islam also makes extremely extensive use of geometry.
3. Idols, such as Vishnu or Jesus.

However, god is in the absolute, said to be "Nirguna Brahman", without qualities.

So why was the name Yahweh Abandoned?. This is an extension of the prohibition on Idols, because, though higher, a name is also an Idol. Adonai, "Lord", isn't a name, but an epithet.

Also let me note the synchronicity of, after I finished my thoughts on this yesterday, going to the Gym and hearing the refrain for Lady Gaga song Alejandro

Stoicism was the dominant philosophy of the Roman Republic and Empire. Stoics had a cosmology similar to the Law of One. Here are two quotes, the first is by Cicero, the last great defender of the Roman Republican system, just as it became the empire. The second is by Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher-king, and the last good emperor of Rome. He appears in the movie gladiator where he tried to restore the Republican system.

Quote:The universe itself is god and the universal outpouring of its soul; it is this same world's guiding principle, operating in mind and reason, together with the common nature of things and the totality that embraces all existence; then the foreordained might and necessity of the future; then fire and the principle of aether; then those elements whose natural state is one of flux and transition, such as water, earth, and air; then the sun, the moon, the stars; and the universal existence in which all things are contained.

—Cicero, De Natura Deorum, i.

Quote:Constantly regard the universe as one living being, having one substance and one soul; and observe how all things have reference to one perception, the perception of this one living being; and how all things act with one movement; and how all things are the cooperating causes of all things that exist; observe too the continuous spinning of the thread and the structure of the web.

—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, iv. 40.

I am really inept at visualizing and some passages of Ra befuddle me because I interpret them in a fixed way.

could someone draw what this looks like for me? It is Ra describing the movement/passage of green-ray energy.

thanks.

plenum


http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=73#17

Quote: the energy of the green-ray center of the body complex spirals twice; firstly, clockwise from the green-ray energy center to the right shoulder, through the head, the right elbow, down through the solar plexus, and to the left hand.

This sweeps all the body complex energy into a channel which then rotates the great circle clockwise again from right — we correct this instrument — from the left to the feet, to the right hand, to the crown, to the left hand, and so forth.

I was doing a bit of perusing of the material today and a particular passage moved me:

Quote:94.9 Questioner: Then she says, “If this is so, this seems to be part of the riddle about the manner of beingness that Ra spoke of. I fear if I do not work successfully on my human distortions I shall be responsible for losing the contact. Yet also Ra suggests the over-dedication to any outcome is unwise. Could Ra comment on these thoughts?”
Ra: I am Ra. We comment in general first upon the query about the contact which indicates once again that the instrument views the mind/body/spirit complex with jaundiced eye. Each mind/body/spirit complex that is seeking shall almost certainly have the immature and irrational behaviors. It is also the case that this entity, as well as almost all seekers, [has] done substantial work within the framework of the incarnative experience and [has] indeed developed maturity and rationality. That this instrument should fail to see that which has been accomplished and see only that which remains to be accomplished may well be noted. Indeed, any seeker discovering in itself this complex of mental and mental/emotional distortions shall ponder the possible non-efficacy of judgment.

in this passage here Don is asking about the 'many voices of the Creator' and how if all things are the Creator, and they are all requesting different types of service, how do we go about navigating this sea of requests?

for eg, some parts of humanity want to hear this information, others do not, and others want to actively cease (suppress or squash) it. How then to decide our actions?

Ra goes quite eloquent in their answer saying that basically we can only serve in the way that aligns best with the totality of our beingness (as best we can understand this totality) and that the biases of many thousands of lifetimes and choices will inform the perspectives of our actions and choices. In the end, it seems, you can only be true to your understandings as best as they have been accumulated as full glimpses of the Creator.

those with more limited viewpoints will serve in such and such a way; those with more expanded viewpoints will see the greater totality. Each offers their service to the One Creator in the way they can 'see' it. ie the limit of the viewpoint determines the level of service because the limit of the viewpoint is the point of perspective.

peace

- -

Quote:67.11 Ra: I am Ra.

Consider, if you will, that you have no ability not to serve the Creator since all is the Creator.

In your individual growth patterns appear the basic third-density choice.

Further, there are overlaid memories of the positive polarizations of your home density. Thus your particular orientation is strongly polarized towards service to others and has attained wisdom as well as compassion.

- -

You do not have merely two opposite requests for service.

You will find an infinite array of contradictory requests for information or lack of information from this source if you listen carefully to those whose voices you may hear.

This is all one voice to which you resonate upon a certain frequency. This frequency determines your choice of service to the One Creator. As it happens this group’s vibratory patterns and those of Ra are compatible and enable us to speak through this instrument with your support. This is a function of free will.

- -

A portion, seemingly of the Creator, rejoices at your choice to question us regarding the evolution of spirit.

A seemingly separate portion would wish for multitudinous answers to a great range of queries of a specific nature.

Another seemingly separate group of your peoples would wish this correspondence through this instrument to cease, feeling it to be of a negative nature.

Upon the many other planes of existence there are those whose every fiber rejoices at your service and those such as the entity of whom you have been speaking which wish only to terminate the life upon the third-density plane of this instrument. All are the Creator.

There is one vast panoply of biases and distortions, colors and hues, in an unending pattern. In the case of those with whom you, as entities and as a group, are not in resonance, you wish them love, light, peace, joy, and bid them well. No more than this can you do for your portion of the Creator is as it is and your experience and offering of experience, to be valuable, needs be more and more a perfect representation of who you truly are.

- -

Could you, then, serve a negative entity by offering the instrument’s life? It is unlikely that you would find this a true service.

Thus you may see in many cases the loving balance being achieved, the love being offered, light being sent, and the service of the service-to-self oriented entity gratefully acknowledged while being rejected as not being useful in your journey at this time.

Thus you serve One Creator without paradox.

Who is the Logos? Is it an entity that evolved?
Our Logos created 7 levels of spiritual evolution. Our Sub-Logos is the Sun, the sub-Logos of our galaxy. Who is the Logos then that created lots of galaxies? Is there the one Logos that created all the galaxies in the universe? Or there can be two Logoi in the same universe?

I think that it stands as the next:

Logos that created the whole Universe. So that there might exist another universes with another Logoi who created them.
Sub-Logoi that created their own Galaxies (each for the one).

If Our Logos created 7 levels (densities) of spiritual evolution, could it be possible that each Logos creates its own path for spiritual evolution? For example, there could be 3 densities or there could be no densities at all?