The Law of One Search Results for ‘peculiar to the’

3 results found.

91.3 Questioner: The sub-Logos such as our sun, then, in creating Its own particular evolution of experience, refines the cosmic mind or, shall we say, articulates it by Its own additional bias or biases. Is this a correct observation?

Ra: I am Ra. It is a correct observation with the one exception that concerns the use of the term “addition,” which suggests the concept of that which is more than the all-mind. Instead, the archetypical mind is a refinement of the all-mind in a pattern peculiar to the sub-Logos’ choosing.

76.10 Questioner: Would I be correct in saying that our local Logos, in acting as co-Creator, distorted to some extent, for the purposes of experience, that which we experience here? And that the archetypes of this particular Logos are somewhat unique with respect to the rest of the creation—but are, of course, related to the all in that they are part of it, but are, I can only say, a unique part—and that the systems of study that we have just talked about would not translate quickly or easily in other parts of the creation. This is a very difficult question to state. Could you clear that up for me?

Ra: I am Ra. We may draw from the welter of statement which you offer the question we believe you ask.* Please re-question if we have mistaken your query.

The archetypical mind is that mind which is peculiar to the Logos under which influence you are at this space/time distorting your experiences. There is no other Logos the archetypical mind of which would be the same, any more than the stars would appear the same from another planet in another galaxy. You may correctly infer that the closer Logoi are indeed closer in archetypes.

74.4 Questioner: In a previous session there was a question on the archetypical mind that was not fully answered. I would like to continue with the answer to that question. Could you please continue with that, or would it be necessary for me to read the entire question over again?

Ra: I am Ra. As a general practise it is well to vibrate the query at the same space/time as the answer is desired. However, in this case it is acceptable to us that a note be inserted at this point in your recording of these sound vibratory complexes referring to the location of the query in previous workings.*

The query, though thoughtful, is in some degree falling short of the realisation of the nature of the archetypical mind. We may not teach/learn for any other to the extent that we become learn/teachers. Therefore, we shall make some general notations upon this interesting subject and allow the questioner to consider and further refine any queries.

The archetypical mind may be defined as that mind which is peculiar to the Logos of this planetary sphere. Thusly, unlike the great cosmic all-mind, it contains the material which it pleased the Logos to offer as refinements to the great cosmic beingness. The archetypical mind, then, is that which contains all facets which may affect mind or experience.

The Magician was named as a significant archetype. However, it was not recognised that this portion of the archetypical mind represents not a portion of the deep subconscious, but the conscious mind and, more especially, the will. The archetype called by some the High Priestess, then, is the corresponding intuitive, or subconscious faculty.

Let us observe the entity as it is in relationship to the archetypical mind. You may consider the possibilities of utilising the correspondences between the mind/body/spirit in microcosm and the archetypical mind/body/spirit closely approaching the Creator.

For instance, in your ritual performed to purify this place you use the term “Ve Geburah.” It is a correct assumption that this is a portion or aspect of the One Infinite Creator. However, there are various correspondences with the archetypical mind which may be more and more refined by the adept. “Ve Geburah” is the correspondence of Michael, of Mars, of the positive, of maleness. “Ve Gedulah” has correspondences to Jupiter, to femaleness, to the negative, to that portion of the Tree of Life concerned with Auriel.

We could go forward with more and more refinements of these two entries into the archetypical mind. We could discuss colour correspondences, relationships with other archetypes, and so forth. This is the work of the adept, not the teach/learner.

We may only suggest that there are systems of study which may address themselves to the aspects of the archetypical mind, and it is well to choose one and study carefully. It is more nearly well if the adept go beyond whatever has been written and make such correspondences that the archetype can be called upon at will.

[There is a 34-second pause between the end of this answer and the beginning of the next question.]