The Law of One Search Results for ‘every event’

4 results found.

1.7 Questioner: [The question was lost because the questioner was sitting too far from the tape recorder to be recorded.]

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colours stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity, for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things.

You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

May we enunciate this law in more detail?

19.15 Questioner: Then the newest third-density beings who’ve just made the transition from second are still strongly biassed towards self-service. There must be many other mechanisms to create an awareness of the possibility of service to others.

I am wondering, first—two things. I’m wondering about the mechanism, and I am wondering when the split takes place, where the entity is able to continue on the road towards service to self that will eventually take him to fourth or fifth density.

I would assume that an entity can continue . . . can start, say, in second density with service totally to self and continue right on through and just stay on what we would call the path of service to self and never ever be pulled over. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. The second-density concept of serving self includes the serving of those associated with tribe or pack. This is not seen in second density as separation of self and other-self. All is seen as self since in some forms of second-density entities, if the tribe or pack becomes weakened, so does the entity within the tribe or pack.

The new or initial third-density entity has this innocent, shall we say, bias or distortion towards viewing those in the family, the society, as you would call, perhaps, country, as self. Thus, though a distortion not helpful for progress in third density, it is without polarity.

The break becomes apparent when the entity perceives other-selves as other-selves and consciously determines to manipulate other-selves for the benefit of the self. This is the beginning of the road of which you speak.

65.8 Questioner: Are you saying then that this possible condition of war would be much more greatly spread across the surface of the globe than anything we have experienced in the past and, therefore, touch a larger percentage of the population in this form of catalyst?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. There are those now experimenting with one of the major weapons of this scenario, that is the so-called psychotronic group of devices, which are being experimentally used to cause such alterations in wind and weather as will result in eventual famine. If this programme is not countered and proves experimentally satisfactory, the methods in this scenario would be made public. There would then be what those whom you call Russians hope to be a bloodless invasion of their personnel in this and every land deemed valuable. However, the peoples of your culture have little propensity for bloodless surrender.

97.5 Questioner: I have analysed the hawk that I saw immediately after returning from the house in Atlanta as a message (most probably from my higher self) indicating that the plan of moving was not the best, was not too appropriate since, without the hawk, everything would have continued as planned with no added catalyst. This single catalyst of a remarkable nature then, logically, from my point of view, could only mean that there was a message as to the inappropriateness of the plan for some reason yet to be discovered. Would Ra comment on that?

Ra: I am Ra. We tread as close as possible to the Law of Confusion in suggesting that not all wingèd creatures have an archetypical meaning. We might suggest that the noticing of shared subjectively notable phenomena is common when, in another incarnational experience, work significant to the service of increased polarity has been shared.

These subjectively interesting shared phenomena then act as a means of communication, the nature of which cannot be discussed by those outside of the shared incarnational experience without the interference with the free will of each entity involved in the complex of subjectively meaningful events.