The Law of One Search Results for ‘Least amount’

2 results found.

92.7 Questioner: In the last session we discussed the first tarot card of the Egyptian type. Are there any distortions in the cards that we have (which we will publish in the book if possible) that Ra did not originally intend, with the exception of the star, which we know is a distortion? Or any additions that Ra did intend in this particular tarot?

Ra: I am Ra. The distortions remaining after the removal of astrological material are those having to do with the mythos of the culture to which Ra offered this teach/learning tool. This is why we have suggested approaching the images looking for the heart of the image rather than being involved overmuch by the costumes and creatures of a culture not familiar to your present incarnation. We have no wish to add to an already distorted group of images, feeling that, although distortion is inevitable, there is the least amount which can be procured in the present arrangement.

33.8 Questioner: Thank you. Then from this I would extrapolate to the conjecture, I will say, that the orientation in mind of the entity is the only thing that is of any consequence at all. The physical catalyst that he experiences, regardless of what is happening about him, will be a function strictly of his orientation in mind. I will use as an example [example deleted], this being a statement of the orientation in mind governing the catalyst. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. We prefer not to use any well-known examples, sayings, or adages in our communications to you due to the tremendous amount of distortion which any well-known saying has undergone. Therefore, we may answer the first part of your query, asking that you delete the example. It is completely true, to the best of our knowledge, that the orientation, or polarisation, of the mind/body/spirit complex is cause of the perceptions generated by each entity.

Thus a scene may be observed in your grocery store. The entity ahead of self may be without sufficient funds. One entity may then take this opportunity to steal. Another may take this opportunity to feel itself a failure. Another may unconcernedly remove the least necessary items, pay for what it can, and go about its business. The one behind the self, observing, may feel compassion, may feel an insult because of standing next to a poverty-stricken person, may feel generosity, may feel indifference.

Do you now see the analogies in a more appropriate manner?