Law of One

[ComradeRock]

Can someone explain the history behind the law of one to me because I think I am reading it way out of context. To me it seems like a trippy pipe dream and I can not get through any of it. The whole time I was reading it I was thinking "If he says 'I am Ra' one more fucking time I am going to go crazy".

[0omnidirectional]

Read the Speeches

http://www.llresearch.org/speeches/speeches_toc.aspx

[Figure-8]

It is a series of channeled messages by a group of people. It describes the nature of time and space and evolution through awareness.

[Built To Last]

The history of the Law of One?

Brother, the first moment man looked up at the skies and all around him at the earth and realized he was a part of it, that is the history of oneness.

[Lord hang man]

You won't get any more technical answers than these. It's more something you can feel than something attainable to those who need it explained. Not that I wont try I suppose.

Basically, I am you, Get it ;)?

[The Jitterskull]

I wonder if Law of One was one of those pieces of information that ended up making Oneness more mainstream?

[Ambient]

I do not subscribe to the theory of oneness, although I am an impersonalist. One can never be equal to or greater than God, that is my quarrel with the proposition of the law of one. This is to say, one [living human entity] can emulate God in quality, but not in quantity.

[Lord hang man]

Hm, that is an interesting thought. You believe the essence of our self can be as moral, or as (for lack of a divine word) creative and benevolent unto a loving god. But not to bond with that entity and live with him as single entity, as creation unto creator as it were. Like a painter using his own self as a canvas, but to be untrue. I'd like to clarify because I've just now tried to describe how I feel One can live with the lord. In the way I put myself into verse penned, Jah can become I.

[Figure-8]

I do not subscribe to the theory of oneness, although I am an impersonalist. One can never be equal to or greater than God, that is my quarrel with the proposition of the law of one. This is to say, one [living human entity] can emulate God in quality, but not in quantity.

If God is simply the sum-total of all parts which can never be comprehended fully, then the human is a God to many things. :eek:

[Ambient]

If God is simply the sum-total of all parts which can never be comprehended fully, then the human is a God to many things. :eek:

That is known as demi-God. The demi-God is not equal to or greater than the supreme God, rather the demi-God is part and parcel of the supreme. But demi-Gods do not have supremacy.

If you can say "this house is my property and I have lordship over it", then you are lord of your house.

In this age many people can claim "this company is my property, and subsequently these workers I have lordship over in certain instances; therefore I am lord over this company".

Even some president or prime minister can claim "I have lordship over this country", even the secretary general of the United Nations might claim soverieghnty (sp) over many nations or even the world.

But of any man or women, human or animal; any living entity. What creature can say they are the creator and not the creature? As rizzo says man is often co-creator, for example the chef utilises nature's creation and inputs his or her agency into making a meal; therefore he is co creater.

But is man or nature ultimate creator?

Any living entity can at the most be regarded as a demi-God, who are at the mercy of the supreme God. After all, demi-God's are only souls ultimatly subserviant to the supersoul like you and I.

[Ambient]

Hm, that is an interesting thought. You believe the essence of our self can be as moral, or as (for lack of a divine word) creative and benevolent unto a loving god. But not to bond with that entity and live with him as single entity, as creation unto creator as it were. Like a painter using his own self as a canvas, but to be untrue. I'd like to clarify because I've just now tried to describe how I feel One can live with the lord. In the way I put myself into verse penned, Jah can become I.

God is defined as the essence of the uncreated universe. For example the universe may expand and contract over billiones of years, it may retract and implode and the process reiterate. Therefore we can understand that the physical universe may be changing but God does not. This is to say that God is essence and potency, therefore at the very atom of "creation" (im going with the scientific consensus on the big bang theory here) God is there. Similarly God is there in the midst of the current effulgent Universe.

This is very much a cosmological conception, and according to this if one found themselves amongst a "living" planet then life would be very similar to it is now fundamentally. This is in concordance with evolution and abiogenesis; change of life and origin of life. It goes without saying that if life's origin is the abiotic and the laws and principals of the abiotic are universally governed, then the process and product of life is fundamentally similar. Similarly the principality and science of life is the same no matter what portion of creation one inhabits; this is universality.

But understand this metaphysical truth... knowledge and reality exist independent of the knower; you are not the cause of events. So if you are not the accountant of existence then you are simply the product.

[Figure-8]

That is known as demi-God. The demi-God is not equal to or greater than the supreme God, rather the demi-God is part and parcel of the supreme. But demi-Gods do not have supremacy.

If you can say "this house is my property and I have lordship over it", then you are lord of your house.

In this age many people can claim "this company is my property, and subsequently these workers I have lordship over in certain instances; therefore I am lord over this company".

Even some president or prime minister can claim "I have lordship over this country", even the secretary general of the United Nations might claim soverieghnty (sp) over many nations or even the world.

But of any man or women, human or animal; any living entity. What creature can say they are the creator and not the creature? As rizzo says man is often co-creator, for example the chef utilises nature's creation and inputs his or her agency into making a meal; therefore he is co creater.

But is man or nature ultimate creator?

Any living entity can at the most be regarded as a demi-God, who are at the mercy of the supreme God. After all, demi-God's are only souls ultimatly subserviant to the supersoul like you and I.

Well, I believe once you get passed the point of "claiming" that you're either the owner of some sort of property aspect or in part, the source of it's existence. But begin manifesting instantly, as in, gained enough trust of your self that you can remove the delay between experience and imaginative manifestation, you become the next step. Which is simply a being without any sort of physical limitation placed upon what they can possible experience. Think 5th dimension. All possible choices, at your freedom to choose from. Without rule or limit.

Other than the law of oneness of course.

[Rizzo in a box]

Love is the Law, the One is the Truth

[ArmsMerchant]

The greatest, and possibly most arcane, of all the metaphysical truths is that at the Highest level, we are all One. Separation is an illusion--that said, since we live in the realm of the relative, it is sometimes a useful illusion.

[Figure-8]

And love is the common denominating presences in every system of life!

[GORDONFREEMAN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxQLiy7AHx8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bz9YPriDLo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfr_Hj9LOac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq11frQ3R9A

^ David Wilcock being interviewed by Project Camelot
He specializes in the Law of One
http://projectcamelot.org/