Search type: any / all / phrase.
Sort by: relevance / session.
78.26 Questioner: The choice of polarity being the unique circumstance, shall I say, for the archetypical basis for the evolution of consciousness in our particular experience indicates to me that we have arrived, through a long process of the Creator knowing Itself, we’ve arrived at a position of present or maximum efficiency for the design of a process of experience. That design for maximum efficiency is in the roots of consciousness and is the archetypical mind and is a product of everything that has gone before. There are, unquestionably, relatively pure archetypical concepts for the seven concepts for mind, body, and spirit. I feel that the language that we have for these is somewhat inadequate.
However, we will continue to attempt to understand, and that is a poor word also, the foundation for this and I am hoping that I have laid the foundation with some degree of accuracy in attempting to set a background for the development of the archetypes of our Logos. Have I left out anything or made any errors, or could you make any comments on my attempt to lay a background for the construction that our Logos used for the archetypes?
Ra: I am Ra. Your queries are thoughtful.
78.33 Questioner: It just seemed to me that since the planets were an outgrowth of the Logos and since the archetypical mind was the foundation for the experience that the planets of this Logos would be in some way related. We will certainly follow your suggestion.
I have been trying to get a foothold into an undistorted doorway, you might say, into the archetypical mind. It seems to me that everything that I have read having to do with archetypes is, to some degree or another, distorted by those who have written and the fact that our language is not really capable of description.
You have spoken of the Magician as a basic archetype and that this seems to have been carried through from the previous octave. Would this then be, if there is an order, the first archetypical concept of this Logos?
Ra: I am Ra. We would first respond to your confusion as regards the various writings upon the archetypical mind. You may well consider the very informative difference between a thing in itself and its relationships or functions. There is much study of archetype which is actually the study of functions, relationships, and correspondences. The study of planets, for instance, is an example of archetype seen as function. However, the archetypes are, first and most profoundly, things in themselves and the pondering of them and their purest relationships with each other should be the most useful foundation for the study of the archetypical mind.
We now address your query as to the archetype which is the Matrix of the Mind. As to its name, the name of Magician is understandable when you consider that consciousness is the great foundation, mystery, and revelation which makes this particular density possible. The self-conscious entity is full of the magic of that which is to come. It may be considered first, for the mind is the first of the complexes to be developed by the student of spiritual evolution.
97.5 Questioner: I have analyzed 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.
The original Law of One books are copyright ©1982, 1984, 1998 L/L Research. The Ra Contact books are copyright ©2018 L/L Research and Tobey Wheelock.
This site copyright ©2003–2024 Tobey Wheelock.
Questions? Comments? Email me: tw at law of one dot info.