10 Specific Questions

[anagogy]

Even more great answers, here's two more questions from me..


I want to clarify my question about determinism conflicting with "free will." Although this isn't totally proven, and quantum physics will disagree with me, through the laws of thermodynamics/conservation of energy everything in this universe is cause-and-effect. The mysterious metaphysical consciousness part of people EXPERIENCES brain states, but has no control over/effect on brain states. Every physical being is just an extremely complex version of rocks hitting rocks, with the mystery of conscious experience as a non-interacting cherry on top. Thus, our "souls" DON'T make choices, they just experience cause-and-effect with the illusion/false belief of choice. Assuming this is true, the only way I could reconcile this type of determinism with the Law of One is if our "souls" learned through experience only, and not through true responsibility since determinism negates true choice thus negating true responsibility. Also, the whole point of creation/separation is for the creator to experience itself, so determinism (within this universe) wouldn't conflict with that goal. Do Ra's teachings contradict this absolute scientific determinism though? If so, how? This is really the only thing that I'm having trouble reconciling within the Law of One so far, since I also logically believe in this type of determinism (but am not 100% sure).


What effect does the "heart/essence/energetic signature" of an entity have during their physical incarnation?  I suppose this also goes hand-in-hand with the determinism thing, since I don't think that the metaphysical consciousness/experience can effect brain states, but does Ra ever explain the effect of the traits of the entity/soul during the physical incarnation?

According to the Law of One, separation is simply an illusion. Thus, everything causes everything in some abstract sense. When you "choose", the whole universe chooses with you because you *ARE* that universe. Whether you call that free will, or determinism, I'm not sure. I generally consider it to be neither, as in, the question is misconceived and befuddles understanding. The primal "Will" at the root of all of our beingness is "free" in the sense of being able to do whatever it wants, needs, intends, or otherwise chooses to do, but there is no independent chooser from everything else, so there is no piece that is choosing in separation from the other pieces, that is simply an appearance. So it is as inaccurate to say the seemingly separate personality has free will, as it is to say that it does not have free will. Choosing is happening, but it is reflected holographically from the microcosm to the macrocosm in structure and experience so it is a bit outside the ball park of the limitations of our present perspective of the cosmos, though it is certainly fun to ruminate about.

Did the past cause the present or did the future fix the past? Did the stars determine your fate, or did your fate determine the stars? Both situations are correct in one sense, and wrong in another. The reality is bigger than both. It isn't linear. These are the paradoxes of the illusion of separation that are apparently resolved when unity is consciously realized.

And the relationship between the seemingly deterministic/mechanistic physical universe and the seemingly non-deterministic/unified nature of metaphysical consciousness is similar to the relationship between a mirror and its reflection. Our material observation is limited to the reflection in the mirror, which we examine in extreme detail, and then arrogantly proclaim that all cause and effect is contained there. It is simply not all contained there -- that is just the reflection which mimics perfectly, in exquisitely precise detail, the real cause and effect of consciousness. So say somebody is hooked up to an EEG -- they do something, we see all the lights and gizmos go off in their brain and proclaim this is must be the "cause" of the action. In actuality, it is just the clothes that the metaphysical has dressed itself up in. The reflection is, after all, very closely aligned with what is being reflected, and it can even be said that it is a relatively undistorted picture of what is being reflected, albeit a completely inverted display of the "real image" (i.e. the tangible universe is simply an inverted reflection of the intangible universe).

The inverted reflection of infinity is: finity.