The Law of One Sessions 39: Question 9

2 results found.

39.9 Questioner: I see. The Nine describe themselves as the “nine principals of God.”* Can you tell me what they mean by that?

Ra: I am Ra. This is also a veiled statement. The attempt is made to indicate that the nine who sit upon the Council are those representing the Creator, the One Creator, just as there may be nine witnesses in a courtroom testifying for one defendant. The term principal has this meaning also.

The desire of the scribe may be seen in much of this material to have affected the manner of its presentation, just as the abilities and preferences of this group determine the nature of this contact. The difference lies in the fact that we are as we are. Thus we may either speak as we will or not speak at all. This demands a very tuned, shall we say, group.

94.9 Questioner: Then she says: “If this is so, this seems to be part of the riddle about the manner of beingness that Ra spoke of. I fear if I do not work successfully on my human distortions I shall be responsible for losing the contact. Yet also Ra suggests the over-dedication to any outcome is unwise. Could Ra comment on these thoughts?”

Ra: I am Ra. We comment in general, first upon the query about the contact which indicates, once again, that the instrument views the mind/body/spirit complex with jaundiced eye.

Each mind/body/spirit complex that is seeking shall almost certainly have the immature and irrational behaviours. It is also the case that this entity—as well as almost all seekers—has done substantial work within the framework of the incarnative experience and has, indeed, developed maturity and rationality. That this instrument should fail to see that which has been accomplished and see only that which remains to be accomplished may well be noted. Indeed, any seeker discovering in itself this complex of mental and mental/emotional distortions shall ponder the possible non-efficacy of judgement.

As we approach the second portion of the query we view the possibility of infringement upon free will. However, we believe we may make reply within the boundaries of the Law of Confusion.

This particular instrument was not trained, nor did it study, nor worked it at any discipline in order to contact Ra. We were able, as we have said many times, to contact this group using this instrument because of the purity of this instrument’s dedication to the service of the One Infinite Creator, and also because of the great amount of harmony and acceptance enjoyed each by each within the group; this situation making it possible for the support group to function without significant distortion.

We are humble messengers. How can any thought be taken by an instrument as to the will of the Creator?

We thank this group that we may speak through it, but the future is mazed. We cannot know whether our geste may, after one final working, be complete.*

Can the instrument, then, think for a moment that it shall cease in the service of the One Infinite Creator? We ask the instrument to ponder these queries and observations.