About the Law of One

[12thUranus]

that is all i really need in my life. i don't need to know everything there is to know during my current life. none of these semantics will help me live the law of one. it feels great to get this off my chest, even if it is on a forum on the internet.

love & light

well done. i couldn't agree more. it can get exhausting, and at the same time it can make us total hypocrites- countering our purpose to live in light. who knows what is truly legitimate. who knows what is counter intelligence. who knows if the informants have been brainwashed to feed us their story.
the weight off your chest is weight off mine as well

[DFS]

<big smile>
i am smiling because the quote, "you are everything, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation...." is taken from session 1, question 5, which i consider my own personal loo touchstone. anytime i feel a bit overwhelmed by 3d, i can restore a sense of proportion by shifting my focus to the larger truths, and i do this by revisiting the key concepts contained in that touchstone response.

from this broader, more soul-like perspective, i can accept that i am a true agnostic. i truly do not know and i am comfortable with the ambiguity of not truly knowing. what i think i know are merely beliefs, assumptions, mental constructs, biases and opinions, any or all of which may be partially or totally incorrect.

thanks to the law of confusion and the law of free will, no 3d persona has more than an approximation of "truth", which means that i am free to pick and choose from any and all sources. if something resonates for me, i add it to my personal data base. if something sounds right but does not feel quite right, it goes onto my wait-and-see shelf to await further information. even things i reject are stashed in my trash data base, just in case that something i now consider false might eventually turn out to be more true than i once believed.

being a true agnostic allows me to shift my perspective from the thick of the drama to that of observer/spectator. if i can remain in observer mode, i tend to take things less personally and can more easily see the humor of events and situations. as an observer, i can be more discerning and less judge mental and can accept more readily that everyone is doing exactly what they agreed to do, and that everything truly is in divine order no matter how chaotic it may appear.

as an agnostic intuitive, i have learned to follow my guidance and to take "truth" where i find it. from a bit of graffiti, "a masochist who practices the golden rule is a sadist," to an inner voice/thought reminding me that, "to assign blame is to give away one's power as a co-creator."the first raises interesting questions about the golden rule and free will, and the second reminds me that i am a co-creator of this 3d illusion, including the stuff i judge as bad and undesirable.

rather than giving away my power as co-creator, i have adopted the distinction from the loo. it is enough to discern whether someone or some social entity is sts or sto. for example, no matter who is responsible for the bp spill, i am confident that it is the result of sts thinking and choices.

this thinking dominates because we as a collective have embraced the paradigm that elevates the most dedicated sts types to positions of power and leadership. there is an elite because we agreed this was the proper order of things.

as a co-creator, i bought into the sts paradigm, and if i want to change that paradigm, i must begin with self. stop looking outside by judging and blaming and look inside to find my own divinity. then be that divine self, live it, joyously share it and know that i am helping to establish a new sto paradigm. with mentors like dw and the loo, i believe i/we can actually pull it off. <smile>

dfs

[Glothr]

<big smile>
i am smiling because the quote, "you are everything, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation...." is taken from session 1, question 5, which i consider my own personal loo touchstone. anytime i feel a bit overwhelmed by 3d, i can restore a sense of proportion by shifting my focus to the larger truths, and i do this by revisiting the key concepts contained in that touchstone response.

from this broader, more soul-like perspective, i can accept that i am a true agnostic. i truly do not know and i am comfortable with the ambiguity of not truly knowing. what i think i know are merely beliefs, assumptions, mental constructs, biases and opinions, any or all of which may be partially or totally incorrect.

thanks to the law of confusion and the law of free will, no 3d persona has more than an approximation of "truth", which means that i am free to pick and choose from any and all sources. if something resonates for me, i add it to my personal data base. if something sounds right but does not feel quite right, it goes onto my wait-and-see shelf to await further information. even things i reject are stashed in my trash data base, just in case that something i now consider false might eventually turn out to be more true than i once believed.

being a true agnostic allows me to shift my perspective from the thick of the drama to that of observer/spectator. if i can remain in observer mode, i tend to take things less personally and can more easily see the humor of events and situations. as an observer, i can be more discerning and less judge mental and can accept more readily that everyone is doing exactly what they agreed to do, and that everything truly is in divine order no matter how chaotic it may appear.

as an agnostic intuitive, i have learned to follow my guidance and to take "truth" where i find it. from a bit of graffiti, "a masochist who practices the golden rule is a sadist," to an inner voice/thought reminding me that, "to assign blame is to give away one's power as a co-creator."the first raises interesting questions about the golden rule and free will, and the second reminds me that i am a co-creator of this 3d illusion, including the stuff i judge as bad and undesirable.

rather than giving away my power as co-creator, i have adopted the distinction from the loo. it is enough to discern whether someone or some social entity is sts or sto. for example, no matter who is responsible for the bp spill, i am confident that it is the result of sts thinking and choices.

this thinking dominates because we as a collective have embraced the paradigm that elevates the most dedicated sts types to positions of power and leadership. there is an elite because we agreed this was the proper order of things.

as a co-creator, i bought into the sts paradigm, and if i want to change that paradigm, i must begin with self. stop looking outside by judging and blaming and look inside to find my own divinity. then be that divine self, live it, joyously share it and know that i am helping to establish a new sto paradigm. with mentors like dw and the loo, i believe i/we can actually pull it off. <smile>

dfs

thank you for your input dfs. i agree with you on many levels. i myself am also an observer of sorts. for the majority of my life i've always opted to observe people and situations rather than be the center of them. while i don't reject my own emotions, rather i embrace every emotion and recognize its opposing emotion (such as the loo suggests). all the world is a stage and i am but another person in the audience, learning and observing.

i don't know if you have ever read any of marcus aurelius' work but a quote of his that i have chosen to live by, alongside the golden rule, is this:

"to refrain from imitation is the best form of revenge."

whenever i feel angry or upset at someone/something and want to attack them back i bring this statement into my consciousness and i make the pond that is my mind still once again. forgiveness means the stoppage of the wheel of karma.

[onething]

for anyone who has read [please email for name's] work, one thing that is worrying me is that he describes souls as being sort of literally born, being young and rather childish and being gently nurtured like infants, before beginning their incarnations.
now, one phrase from eastern spirituality that makes sense to me is "that which is not born cannot die."

but if we are born then we can die. now, the law of one seems to say that at the end of 8th density, we merge with the void and lose even memory, which i must say does not sound like a goal i want to work toward.

so maybe we are not immortal beings?

[12thUranus]

for anyone who has read [please email for name's] work, one thing that is worrying me is that he describes souls as being sort of literally born, being young and rather childish and being gently nurtured like infants, before beginning their incarnations.
now, one phrase from eastern spirituality that makes sense to me is "that which is not born cannot die."

but if we are born then we can die. now, the law of one seems to say that at the end of 8th density, we merge with the void and lose even memory, which i must say does not sound like a goal i want to work toward.

so maybe we are not immortal beings?

i have actually thought about this lately. dunno whose work you are referring to, but i understand the meaning.
i think many teachers/philosophies use very descriptive analogies for spiritual maturation. astrology comes to mind- how aries is the infant and pisces the karmic completion.
to your question, i find clarity in the idea that what they are describing is a process. meaning when one first enters fourth density, or any density, they are just babies who will need to fulfill all the necessary steps before achieving fifth. and, as you stated, once one reaches eighth density, which is really the first density, then the cycle starts completely over as an "infant" soul. this allows for the "infant philosophy" as a learning tool to coexist with the fundamental reality that "if we never die, then there never was a time when we never were." so, whoever you are referring to specifically, i think you can take that person at their word for who they are, an imperfect being. that's not to say that their information is not useful.

[Glothr]

for anyone who has read [please email for name's] work, one thing that is worrying me is that he describes souls as being sort of literally born, being young and rather childish and being gently nurtured like infants, before beginning their incarnations.
now, one phrase from eastern spirituality that makes sense to me is "that which is not born cannot die."

but if we are born then we can die. now, the law of one seems to say that at the end of 8th density, we merge with the void and lose even memory, which i must say does not sound like a goal i want to work toward.

so maybe we are not immortal beings?

i can see what you mean. i'd wager a majority of people would feel/do feel the same way about losing all sense of independent identity. but if you think about it becoming one again means you will have knowledge of everything that is happening, has happened, will happen, etc. if i had to guess i'd say rather than the memories being gone forever they will be available but you wouldn't see them from just your own perspective. rather you would see them from the perspective of the infinite.

also, the reason we have a sense of independence, of self, is due to the veiling we go through when we incarnate. this would logically mean that you aren't really a separate entity in the first place. we think we are because of the veiling. if it were to magically lift tomorrow and you had all the knowledge of the universe you wouldn't see the point in having a single identity. i don't know if that makes sense, or if i'm even mildly correct, but it is something worth thinking about.

[onething]

well, i would like to point out that the author i mentioned has been discussed openly here several times before, and david has been extolling his work on two recent radio interviews.

it does conflict with the law of one in some ways, so it would be nice to be able to discuss it.

but anyway, to 12th uranus, the thing is, the data this man presents is not his, but gleaned from thousands of individuals in trance states. although i imagine it was only a very few who described the birth of souls.

and glothr, i like your interpretation of the memory loss, it's probably something like that. i always tell myself when something about reality doesn't seem attractive, that i just don't understand it, since in my very optimistic opinion, the truth, whatever it turns out to be, is the absolutely best and most wonderful among all possibilities. i mean, that's the law!

[Kreecher]

i've had this question too a while ago and it wasn't until i read your question, that i realized that i had formed an answer to that question for myself. not all the words i use are "purely" mine of course. it is a mix based on everything i was allowed to learn so far by following classes, interacting with people, reading books, checking intuition, contemplating, .... perhaps it will be useful for you, perhaps it will not, but since i decided to write it down for myself anyway to get some clarity on the subject, i figured i might as well share it. it's kind of a step by step thing and needs to be read as a whole since it is all linked together. sorry it turned out to be so long :

that which is not born, can not die: i agree with this statement. but as with many things and especially words, they are open to interpretation. and "being born" can have more than one meaning and we will look at it differently, depending on where we stand in our evolution. to keep it simple, i'll take two extremes:

1. when we are still in the early "child stages", our bodies will indeed be born. and at some point our ego, corresponding to that life and our "desires/wantings" at that time, will emerge.
   
   i see the ego as an energy "born out of" our own imbalances, which start at a very young age. an imbalance usually expresses itself as an emotion, which is a "feeling" that is out of balance. emotions emerge when we "want" or "not want" something. (ex. i don't want to be cold, i want food that i like, i dont want to interact with person x because i dont like how i allow myself to feel around him, etc) so every time that we have an emotional reaction, energy is created and stored in our energetic body. all these energies ball together and our ego is born. from this stage, we tend to have a lot of emotional connections to our ego's and bodies and identify ourselves with them.
   
2. when we come closer to what for example tibetan buddhism calls "becoming enlightened" or what the loo calls "becoming one", the only thing we are really doing is re-balancing ourselves. so we are getting rid of "emotions" and replacing them with "feelings" again. we are learning not to "want" or not to "not want" things, situations, emotions, ... the clues are in pretty much all the esoteric teachings, since most of them have this oneliner in some form or shape: "live in the now".
   
   when we want or not want, we do not live in the now. when we want something, it means it isn't there right there and then, so it means we're longing for something that might be in a future event. when we "don't want" something, it means it is there, wheter physically or in an emotional reaction, it exists on some level and we don't want it to exist. so again, when not wanting something, we are not living in the now, but in the past, because we long for a moment that the thing we didn't want but is now here, was not there.
   
   from this stage, we are balancing out our emotions and connections to our ego's and body. and we are learning that we are more than body and ego.

based on the above i concluded that indeed, because our bodies are "born", they will also die. but we or something in us existed before our new body did. a body cannot live without life energy. if there is no life energy incarnating into a body it will not live. in the same manner the body only dies when this life energy excarnates again. from this i took the next logical step for me: we can not "be" our bodies. we àre some form of energy, since it is some form of energy incarnating and excarnating. so basically our bodies are the vessel for the life energy we are, and we do carry the responsibility to take care of it as well as we can, without attaching "emotions" to caring for it.

the other conclusion i can make for myself, is the fact that when our physical bodies die, the ego's we created will as well. simply because an ego is not something that incarnates, but is something that we "create", that is "born" out of our emotions/imbalances. so we "are" also not our ego's. but as long as we are not the highly enlightened beings we strive to be (consciously or subconsciously), we can use our ego's to see where we are out of balance, because there is no better tool thàn our ego's to teach us where we are not in balance. each time we catch ourselves on an emotion, however big or small, thàt is when we had a unbalanced thought process resulting in an emotion. it's easy to track them because the emotions follow the imbalanced though processes really quickly and emotions are easy to feel.

[Kreecher]

the above is something that i found very important to understand that it really is something to strive for to get to 8th density. indeed, from the point of this density, where we still have ego's and the likes, it would not be very constructive to immediately go to 8th density, because indeed we would be nothing more than a drop of blue die in a giant pond. but we will not just merge with a void and loose everything we are and have been. because we do everything and are allowed to do everything in tiny baby steps. we do not go from 3rd to 8th, but from 3rd to whichever density we àre ready for. we are allowed to figure out what we are and what we are not in this density before we go to the next step. and one of our first baby steps (in my opinion) may be that we can realise that we are not our bodies and not our ego's and try to adjust our thought patterns to these possible realities by consciously monitoring our emotions. by consciously trying to get more stable, more "in balance". not getting trapped by the "positive" imbalances either (i don't use positive and negative as a value judgment, because in essence there is no such thing as pos/neg of course , but i need to use words to try to get across what i mean), because being "exuberantly" happy for example, or "wanting" to help somebody, is also an imbalance/emotion.

this also means, that when and if we go to a next density, we will be ready to do so. we will not feel as if we are losing anything, because we learned the lessons we had to learn in the previous density before going to the next. so when going to the next we stay ourselves as you are right there and then, but we just become a little "bigger", "wiser", "more energized", more "a whole" or "one" again.

just as our physical body grows gradually from a baby, to an adolescent, to an adult, to an elderly in steps, so too does our consciousness. with the only difference being that there is a seemingly greater flexibility in consciousness. since we will stay at each density as long as we have to, to comfortably grow into a next one. and our bodies being born/dying "seems" less flexible. but in essence we only do this because we choose to do another round in the same density and the bodies are just helping us along and giving us chance after chance after chance to actually grow enough to consciously move onto our next big boy/girl step, to then again start taking baby steps. so in my opinion, we really are immortal beings. and with each baby step (learning in the density we are in now) we take and each big boy/girl step (going to a next density) we become more and more immortal and whole/one/enlightened...

[12thUranus]

excellently stated comprehension kreecher.

i couldn't resist complimenting you for your well thought out, detailed post. from my perch, it is spot on.

love and blessings,