Search type: any / all / phrase.
Sort by: relevance / session.
69.21 Questioner: You mean the character Trostrick.
Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. We referred to Esmerelda, as this imagined entity was called.
We may note that long practice at the art which each intuits here would be helpful. We cannot speak of methodology for the infringement would be most great. However, to speak of group efforts is, as we scan each, merely confirmation of what is known. Therefore, this we may do.
We have the available energy for one fairly brief query.
73.15 Questioner: You said that if the entity says that no working comes from it but only through it it is also infringing. Is that correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. We said that in that event there is no infringement.
Ra: What do you not understand?
83.8 Questioner: I just thought of an analogy while you were saying that, in that I fly an airplane, and I have testing in a simulator, but this is not too much of a test since I know we’re bolted to the ground and can’t get hurt. However, when we’re actually flying and making the approach, landing etc., in the airplane, even though it’s the same, it is, I guess a poor analogy with respect to what was happening prior to the veil. I know all of the conditions in both cases, and yet I cannot get too interested in the simulator work, because I know that it is bolted to the ground. I see this as the entities prior to the veil knowing they were [chuckling] bolted to the creation, so to speak, or part of it. Is this a reasonable analogy?
Ra: I am Ra. This is quite reasonable, although it does not bear upon the function of the review of incarnation, but rather bears upon the experiential differences before and after veiling.
9.1 Questioner: We [are] definitely going to make the Law of One the primary portion of this book. I apologize for getting sidetracked on these subjects. We’re in the position of, shall we say, beating around as to what direction to go with the book to begin with. For this reason I have asked a few questions and probably will ask a few more questions in the early part of these sessions that will be somewhat meaningless with respect to application of the Law of One because my own ignorance what I’m doing. However, I expect [to] become more proficient rapidly while we go on.
There are a couple of questions that are probably meaningless but if I could get them out of the way. They’re bothering me a little bit.
Is it possible for you to suggest a publisher for this book?
Ra: I am Ra. No.
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.
