The Law of One, Book II, Session 42
Questioner: I will attempt to make an analogy.
If an animal, shall I say, a bull, in a pen attacks you because you have wandered into his pen, you get out of his way rapidly but you do not blame him.
You do not have much of an emotional response other than the response that he might damage you.
However, if you encounter another self in his territory and he attacks you, your response may be more of an emotional nature creating physical bodily responses.
Am I correct in assuming that when your response to the animal and to the other-self is that of seeing both as Creator and loving both and understanding their action in attacking you is the action of their free will then you have balanced yourself correctly in this area?
Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is basically correct.
However, the balanced entity will see in the seeming attack of an other-self the causes of this action which are, in most cases, of a more complex nature than the cause of the attack of the second-density bull as was your example.
Thus this balanced entity would be open to many more opportunities for service to a third-density other-self.
Questioner: Would a perfectly balanced entity feel any emotional response in being attacked by the other-self?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.
The response is love.
Questioner: In the illusion that we now experience it is difficult to maintain this response especially if the attack results in physical pain, but I assume that this response should be maintained even through physical pain or loss of life. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and further is of a major or principle importance in understanding, shall we say, the principle of balance.
Balance is not indifference but rather the observer not blinded by any feelings of separation but rather fully imbued with love.
The Law of One, Book IV, Session 85
Questioner: I have a question here from (name).
It states: “As we see compassion developing in ourselves is it more appropriate to balance this compassion with wisdom or to allow the compassion to develop as much as possible without being balanced”?
Ra: I am Ra. This query borders upon that type of question to which answers are unavailable due to the free-will prohibitions upon information from teach/learners.
To the student of the balancing process we may suggest that the most stringent honesty be applied.
As compassion is perceived it is suggested that, in balancing, this perception be analyzed.
It may take many, many essays into compassion before true universal love is the product of the attempted opening and crystallization of this all-important springboard energy center.
Thus the student may discover many other components to what may seem to be all-embracing love.
Each of these components may be balanced and accepted as part of the self and as transitional material as the entity’s seat of learn/teaching moves ever more clearly into the green ray.
When it is perceived that universal love has been achieved the next balancing may or may not be wisdom.
If the adept is balancing manifestations it is indeed appropriate to balance universal love and wisdom.
If the balancing is of mind or spirit there are many subtleties to which the adept may give careful consideration.
Love and wisdom, like love and light, are not black and white, shall we say, but faces of the same coin, if you will.
Therefore, it is not, in all cases, that balancing consists of a movement from compassion to wisdom.
We may suggest at all times the constant remembrance of the density from which each adept desires to move.
This density learns the lessons of love.
In the case of Wanderers there are half-forgotten overlays of other lessons and other densities.
We shall leave these considerations with the questioner and invite observations which we shall then be most happy to respond to in what may seem to be a more effectual manner.
The Law of One, Book IV, Session 86
Questioner: In the last session you had mentioned the properties precipitating from the veiling of the mind; the first being envisioning or farseeing.
Would you explain the meaning of that?
Ra: I am Ra. Your language is not overstrewn with non-emotional terms for the functional qualities of what is now termed unconscious mind.
The nature of mind is something which we have requested that you ponder.
However, it is, shall we say, clear enough to the casual observer that we may share some thoughts with you without infringing upon your free learn/teaching experiences.
The nature of the unconscious is of the nature of concept rather than word.
Consequently, before the veiling the use of the deeper mind was that of the use of unspoken concept.
You may consider the emotive and connotative aspects of a melody.
One could call out, in some stylized fashion, the terms for the notes of the melody.
One could say, quarter note A, quarter note A, quarter note A, whole note F.
This bears little resemblance to the beginning of the melody of one of your composer’s most influential melodies, that known to you as a symbol of victory.
This is the nature of the deeper mind.
There are only stylized methods with which to discuss its functions.
Thusly our descriptions of this portion of the mind, as well as the same portions of body and spirit, were given terms such as “far-seeing,” indicating that the nature of penetration of the veiled portion of the mind may be likened unto the journey too rich and exotic to contemplate adequate describing thereof.