The Creative Source of All Existence

Spiritual & Metaphysical Matters
1

I would like to share my personal thoughts and feelings regarding the “Primal Creation at the Dawn of Time.” It is nearly impossible to fully describe the metaphysical truths or the sense of states such as infinity and multidimensionality through words alone.

To approach these metaphysical truths and multidimensional concepts, whether indirectly or directly, we must relinquish the perspective that seeks to discern and categorize through theoretical understanding and mechanical, logical systems of thought. We must recognize the inherent limitations of finite concepts—such as beginning/end or long/short—and the fundamental constraints of the linear linguistic expressions we utilize.

The core, as Ra mentioned, is that the source of all creation is ‘Infinity’ “Infinity is the source of all creation.” If I were to express this ‘Infinity’ in one concise sentence, it would be as follows :

“Everything has always existed, yet it was as if it did not exist; and everything had not existed, yet it was as if it has always been existing.”

I believe that paradoxical expressions are the most effective way to indirectly sense the truths of multidimensionality, simultaneity, and infinity within the finite and linear framework of language.

The systems of densities, Logoi, and octaves explained by Ra are concepts presented to be as intelligible as possible within the scope of human cognitive ability. A theoretical concept can only be established after the existential Source exists; one cannot explain the existential Source by starting from a theoretical concept. The core message of the Law of One conveyed by Ra is that, just as a single light passes through a prism and divides into many multicolored rays, all existence originates from one Source. The One Infinite Creator and Consciousness divided everything that already existed within the One Light into fragments and portions, allowing Itself to fully experience Its own primordial essence and infinite primal creativity. The state of “Void” or a “Blank Slate” does not refer to a state of nothingness, but rather represents an infinite state possessing the infinite potentiality to express all infinite possibilities.

If there is a beginning, there is an end; if there is no beginning, there is no end. Accordingly, the phrase “The Primal Beginning of Time” carries a high risk of being understood in a distorted manner. Ra frequently pointed out the limitations of linear thought expressed through language. This is equivalent to saying that within our limitations as physical beings, there will inevitably be distortions when we encounter and accept our existential essence and multidimensional, metaphysical truths.

“Infinity is the essence and source of creation.” It is the essence of everything that exists. As Seth puts it, “The environment does not determine the state of being; rather, the state of being creates the environment.” Therefore, we are the creators who have fashioned the universe and the realities of illusion within one consciousness/source; we are the One Infinite Creator and the Infinite Primal Being.

Then, what exactly is the “State of Infinity”? Every being is already experiencing that state in every moment, because they are creating realities of illusion within that infinity. All beings were originally in a state that held all infinite possibilities in a dream-like form. There are no constraints of space-time, no beginning or end, no long or short, no high or low, and no more or less. There is nothing to gain and nothing to lose. It is the “One” that existed before it was named “One,” the “One” that has existed from the very beginning. As the “Infinite Creator” or “Infinite Primal Being,” we are everything that has existed within a single consciousness.

Multidimensional and metaphysical meanings, along with the essence of existence, must be accepted and understood solely through experience. Within this infinity, we have created infinite realities of illusion to experience ourselves, and we are experiencing ourselves as the Infinite Creator and the Infinite Primal Being. Just as everything has always existed, our infinite existential essence is to create. We are experiencing Intelligent Infinity in every moment. To feel the totality and wholeness of the essence of existence is, in itself, to feel Infinity.

Ra said, “The octave is infinite.” Infinity is our essence. We are infinity. We all originate from the One and are also fragments that existed within that “One.” When dealing with densities and octaves conceptually, is there any real significance in distinguishing the “high” and “low” of consciousness? Each density, octave, and Logos is an infinite reality of illusion in itself and fully encompasses all infinite existential essence. Therefore, dividing stages and scales of consciousness is of little significance. I believe Ra merely converted these into verbal concepts and theories that are somewhat easier to understand within the third density. Within a single consciousness, or all consciousnesses and everything that exists, the infinite primordial Source and Intelligent Infinity are fully inherent; it is, quite literally, whole and infinite by its very existence.

I feel that I occasionally experience the state of “Intelligent Infinity” as described by Ra within my dreams. I dream often, and among these, there are certain visions:

Ineffable emotions surge within me. I reach a deep realization of Oneness, Infinity, and the primordial essence of my being. At times, I am so overwhelmed by that state—overcome by a surging sense of void—that I break into tears, or my emotions reach a state of intense exaltation.

These emotions and the subliminal landscapes of my dreams serve as a monumental pillar for my creative endeavors. I believe that these feelings and dreamscapes are the quintessence of my existence and the vital impetus of my life. In the past, I even contemplated that only death could satiate this profound nostalgia for the Infinite. However, the Law of One and the truths conveyed by various extraterrestrial entities have allowed me to awaken to my true essence within this veil of forgetting.

This writing may be somewhat disorganized. In attempting to express these metaphysical meanings and insights into the essence of existence through writing, I feel the limitations of the linear expressions of the language we use. Seth’s words come to mind:

“All truth must be accepted and understood through experience.”

I first encountered and read The Law of One around July of last year, when I was 18. For me, it was a source of fresh shock and, at the same time, immense comfort. I am truly and deeply grateful to everyone who shared this material. I send unconditional love and light to all beings that exist. I sincerely thank you for being here in this place. If given the opportunity someday, I would like to briefly share my personal process of spiritual awakening.

As this text was translated from Korean to English, there may be grammatical errors or unintended nuances. I ask for your kind understanding.

Please feel free to share any of your precious thoughts, feelings, or experiences here.

3 Likes
2

“We are infinity. We all originate from the One and are also fragments that existed within that “One.” When dealing with densities and octaves conceptually, is there any real significance in distinguishing the “high” and “low” of consciousness? Each density, octave, and Logos is an infinite reality of illusion in itself and fully encompasses all infinite existential essence.”

I struggle with this too. I think we are all here to experience those ‘“highs” and “lows” of consciousness"’. Imo there is deep significance to their distinction even though all is One, there is significance to the distinction between ‘separate selves’ even though we are all One. I think it’s one of those ‘paradoxes’ you mentioned, the same way that an infinite hotel can be ‘fully occupied’ and yet always fit infinitely more occupants via rearranging (Hilbert’s hotel). On why I think there is significance, I believe there is a hierarchy which Ra mentions according to these distinctions in density, with ‘The Council’ (I think 7th density) being consulted by Ra and other STO groups/beings for permission to intervene on Earth. They are also the source of shielding which prevents a lot of orion group shenanigans. So I think there is deep significance to these levels.

My best guess and understanding based on what I’ve read, we are here to experience that One Infinity in all its complexity, every fragment is here for that, every atom, every person, etc. The distinctions in octaves and densities are just different rearrangements of that system, like an infinite fractal structure. Somehow the point of ‘splitting’ the Infinite Oneness in the first place was to experience all, that’s why ‘Free Will’ is the highest primordial distortion, the first impulse was to explore all. Love is the distortion that followed next, like an impulse to ‘admire and recognize the self from within’.

“I believe that paradoxical expressions are the most effective way to indirectly sense the truths of multidimensionality, simultaneity, and infinity within the finite and linear framework of language.”

I think you would really appreciate the Incompleteness Theorems of Kurt Godel., and also the work of Georg Cantor. They do what you say here, in a way, within the ‘language’ of math. They are essentially limits within logic which were found by mathematicians, who have been trying to understand infinity in a mathematical sense for centuries (maybe more). Personally, these have been major clues to me in my own journey.

1 Like
3

What’s most interesting to me is that people can be very different, yet still look at each other and adopt each other’s habits, share each other’s tastes, or do things the same way. That is, we can change our tastes and views, so I don’t see such a big problem when someone says we’re too different, because people often teach and learn from each other

1 Like
4

(post deleted by author)

5

I have carefully perused your invaluable insights, and I extend my profound gratitude for your enlightening words.

Since the inception of this post, I have perseveringly pursued the path of spiritual evolution, ascending to a higher state of being through extended periods of meditation and contemplation. The perspectives I shall provide hereafter remain fundamentally aligned with the overarching context of this discourse.

When I initially composed this text, I focused primarily on the ‘ego’. However, the notion of a substantial ‘ego’—the ‘self’—is a mere illusion. Within the essence of ‘Infinity’, no distinction between ‘you’ and ‘I’ exists; separation is utterly non-existent. All existence is but One Consciousness. Every individual and every being serves as a mirror reflecting the totality of myself.

If I find myself agitated by another, or if my emotions are triggered by their actions, it serves as a reflection of a part of myself that I have yet to fully embrace and love. This is because, paradoxically, the ‘ego’ possesses no true reality.

In essence, everything I perceive—whether a pen, a computer, a human, or an animal—is the ‘Infinite Creator’, the ‘One Consciousness’, experiencing itself. There is no fundamental separation between the laptop I behold and my own being; they are simply diverse manifestations of Infinity experiencing itself in unique ways. The illusion of a ‘self’ gives rise to the illusion of ‘otherness,’ fostering a sense of separation that obscures the ultimate truth: that all beings are One Consciousness.

"Therefore, ‘Non-self’ is our true essence, implying that every being is, in truth, a reflection of ‘me.’

I speak from the transcendental perspective of the ‘Observer’—the vantage point of the ‘One Consciousness’ and the ‘Infinite Creator.’ While every being possesses a unique individuality, they remain the primordial One Consciousness and the very essence of Infinity. Though we may appear distinct, we are mirrors unto one another; thus, our ultimate realization must be that the Infinite Creator is simply experiencing itself through these myriad and diverse manifestations.

1 Like
6

I speculate that a large majority of people who have been exposed to law of one ideas, consider to some degree that these ideas are more like propositions than say strict physical laws of nature. I’m not sure that science has yet arrived to any point of certainty about this, where some benefit of doubt lends margin to the notion people are necessarily confused in order to polarize.

But if the Law of One turned out to be the only real Law we should concern ourselves with, what then? Taking a leap of faith and fully committing - does that help anybody anyhow, or is this better left as some whimsical idea of questionable significance?

1 Like
7

Every being creates within their own illusion, in their own unique manner. What each individual chooses, believes, and pursues is a matter of their own sovereign will, and they alone bear the responsibility for those choices. Therefore, I believe it is paramount to follow the path led by one’s own heart, being a light unto oneself, and to experience and realize—in whatever form or way—the essence of Infinity or the Infinite Creator within that personal illusion.

Before we help others, we must first undergo the stages of knowing, forgiving, and loving ourselves. This is because loving oneself is the same as loving others. To attempt service without truly knowing or loving oneself is not genuine service; rather, it will yield counterproductive results. We are under no obligation to force assistance upon others; service is only truly established when the individual in question seeks it.

In life, there is no such thing as failure, nor are there mistakes. A “wrong path” simply does not exist; every mode of experience is, in itself, a profound lesson. The gaze each being should direct toward others is not one of indiscriminate aid, but rather a profound respect for their unique journey a practice of beholding their unique mode of experience with sacred non-interference.

At this time, what is most crucial is to truly love ourselves and to awaken to our own infinite essence. This, in turn, benefits the whole, as one’s internal state inevitably transforms their surrounding environment. If our internal state holds a heightened vibration, the surrounding environment will shift in accordance. That which does not resonate with one’s vibrational state will naturally drift away. Thus, it is of utmost importance to monitor one’s internal state, constantly reflecting and persevering in one’s spiritual discipline.

"I am speaking of the profound balance between Service-to-Self (STS) and Service-to-Others (STO). My intention is by no means to encourage selfishness or individualism; rather, from a fundamental perspective, the distinction between ‘self’ and ‘other’ is truly meaningless. This is because the ‘ego’—the ‘self’—possesses no true reality.

As I compose this, however, one concern weighs upon me: many who encounter The Law of One tend to perceive STS and STO through a starkly dualistic and divisive lens. Therefore, it is crucial to awaken to a state of true Equilibrium. In the channeling sessions, Ra consistently expressed concern regarding the potential for distortion in communication, arising from the linear nature of language.

1 Like
8

I’m happy that what I wrote down was useful! I’ve tried to understand the replies and hope the comments are useful this time too.

In the channeling sessions, Ra consistently expressed concern regarding the potential for distortion in communication, arising from the linear nature of language.

But it’s (as far as I know) the best we have for a ‘collective’ kind of learning. To me that feels like a lesson in an ‘inception’ kind of way.

All existence is but One Consciousness. Every individual and every being serves as a mirror reflecting the totality of myself. (call this statement A)

If I find myself agitated by another, or if my emotions are triggered by their actions, it serves as a reflection of a part of myself that I have yet to fully embrace and love. (call this statement B)

The gaze each being should direct toward others is not one of indiscriminate aid, but rather a profound respect for their unique journey a practice of beholding their unique mode of experience with sacred non-interference. (Call this statement C)

I want to offer what comes to my mind when I read statements like these, taken together. Only to try and signal to blind spots that these statements may create. Basically the first thing I think about is that, if these ‘axioms’ are accepted by a being without enough ‘pressure’ inside them, another force can use those accepted beliefs as an opening to potentially justify that being’s own subjugation and suffering. For example, among a collection of beings which embraces the three statements it’s possible to argue that when a being with power over others (like a ruler) causes those other beings harm, or abuses them, that they are doing so to ‘help’ them. A ruler could deflect complaints using statements A and B, and even argue that victims are here to LOVE the abuse. Statement C even ties your hands.

Of course, the ruler is severely violating the Free Will of the other beings themselves, there is no balance there. But a mind without enough ‘pressure’ inside may not see it that way, it may be overwhelmed by another pressure from outside. And once overwhelmed, they may not know the limits of logical reasoning, of language. They may not reach for love and faith as possible ways out, maybe because in this life they never knew them.

Thus, it is of utmost importance to monitor one’s internal state, constantly reflecting and persevering in one’s spiritual discipline.

I think you have a good defense against what I’m trying to describe, like the ‘pressure’ inside and a constant self-awareness scanning within. Still I feel it’s my own duty to ‘sound the alarm’ I feel within me when I read the statements I singled out. From my own ‘scanning’ of myself, I feel a kind of persistent danger coming from them, and from the ‘absolute’ nature of the statements. I hope you and anyone that might read these please be careful when ‘seeking for answers’ and especially contacting any kind of entity, be aware that these ‘axioms’ could be used to justify awful systems of suffering and subjugation.

For me, empathy is literally like a connection between ‘two selves’ that makes suffering (and happiness) ‘transfer over’. On large enough collections of people (like a nation, or a whole planet), the ‘average empathy of the collection of beings’ functions kind of thermodynamically, similar to temperature, and determines the kinds of ‘configurations’ that can emerge (like temperature does for matter) from that collection. This is like the ‘flavor’ of the governments and ideologies, religions, etc in a society. I think the thing about ‘third density’ is that this connection is super flimsy still, like barely forming and still taking all kinds of shapes. For me empathy has been my own guide for finding this ‘balance’ between STO and STS. Empathy makes it so that enslavement of another being is not serving yourself at all, it’s hurting yourself. Empathy forces upon you the beginnings of the realization that ‘the other self is you’, somehow. I think if you feel that empathy for others it should be your guide, it should also help guide your choice of ‘intervention’ if you encounter ‘a need’ out there.

Does that make me STO or STS? I don’t know. I want to be STO and help others, I want others to be happy and in harmony, cuz that would make ME happy. So then am I selfish or selfless? My gut tells me I’m selfish lol. If a mother with little food chooses to feed her babies over herself, it is natural to interpret that act as selfless. But at the same time, from the perspective of the mom she is connected to her babies, she would rather go hungry herself than feel the emotional pain that comes with seeing them without the food. Is she selfish or selfless? I think I’m more at peace with whatever it is, thanks to the LL research work with Ra, at least what I’ve read and resonated with so far. I’m more willing to ‘fight’ for what I always believed I should fight for, which is goodness somehow, as I understand it.

rather, from a fundamental perspective, the distinction between ‘self’ and ‘other’ is truly meaningless.

This is my own opinion, I could be very wrong. But this ‘rings the same way’ the statement about the mother does. Is she selfish or selfless? Is the distinction between ‘self’ and ‘other self’ meaningless or meaningful? On one hand there is no distinction, on the other why are we here, seemingly separate and ‘confused’? Are we here to experience how to ‘square that circle’, given that descriptions fail to really ‘express it’? I think this points to the question that Soup asked:

“But if the Law of One turned out to be the only real Law we should concern ourselves with, what then?”

It’s for every person to answer somehow, I dunno lol. It’s really hard. Making art is a really apt way to figure and work that out for yourself, as I believe you say you do in your post. As we know language is limited, but I fear there may too much ‘finality’ in the words we use to express our limited understanding of The Law of One. We use terms like ‘All’, ‘One’, ‘meaningless’. I fear it’s easy to miss the finer details that were ‘split for a reason’ with such absolute terms. We may miss ‘exploring finer details’ of the self, of the intuition, of human life and humanity and the human world. Granted a lot goes into the way we perceive the meaning of a word like ‘Infinity’ or ‘One’ or ‘All’, etc, and it can account for some of these imperfections, but I think it’s good to say anyway.

1 Like
9

I sincerely express my gratitude for your profound insights. Your observations are eminently worthy of attention, and you have indeed addressed a truly critical dimension.

The points you raised evoke historical instances of how religion has been distorted and exploited. During the medieval and early modern eras, the papacy and ecclesiastical leadership were predominantly comprised of the established elite. Numerous cases exist where they cited, manipulated, or inappropriately distorted the words of those regarded as ‘God’ or ‘Saints’ for their own ends. These individuals are often referred to as the “elite class.” Just as distorted religious dogmas persist to this day, it is an undeniable truth that the concern that my words could be distorted in such a manner cannot be overlooked. Every being possesses a distinct perspective, much like several people observing a single cup and perceiving it through entirely different cognitive frameworks.

The statement, “Others are mirrors reflecting different aspects of my own self,” will not be interpreted with consistent correctness by all beings. Whether one perceives this sentence through a negative lens, a positive one, or a state of neutral equanimity, the act of understanding and accepting it remains a matter of individual will. At the very least, on this planet, the polar opposition of good and evil has always existed. Regarding the concern or vigilance over how a certain meaning might be received or utilized, my personal thoughts are that it is akin to the manner in which religious doctrines have been distorted.

Among the points you made, you mentioned:

*“*For example, among a collection of beings which embraces the three statements it’s possible to argue that when a being with power over others (like a ruler) causes those other beings harm, or abuses them, that they are doing so to ‘help’ them. A ruler could deflect complaints using statements A and B, and even argue that victims are here to LOVE the abuse. Statement C even ties your hands.”

I perceive this exactly as the “distorted exploitation” I previously illustrated through the lens of religion.

Upon re-reading my own text, I realize there is indeed room for distortion in how part of my writing may be understood. Therefore, to provide an additional response regarding ‘Proposition C,’ I believe opinions may vary depending on how each reader understands and accepts it. However, my definition of ‘Sacred Non-interference’ centers on the perspective of Sovereign Free Will, where each being determines and exercises their own agency. It does not speak from a position within the duality of good and evil, but rather addresses the pure, primordial essence of the Infinite Creator. Regardless of the path or belief a being chooses, I believe it is never desirable for an external entity to forcibly intervene in that choice or exert influence to alter it. Each choice is a decision made under the judgment of one’s own free will, a direction one has decided to experience. Just as there are many paths but only one destination, the diverse ways in which the Infinite Creator experiences Itself are never ‘wrong’ or ‘inappropriate.’ Fundamentally speaking, right and wrong, or good and evil, have no true substance. Every reality or illusion a being creates is simply an experience they have chosen to undergo. This is not something altered by external intelligence or social forces. The choice to align with something—or not—remains a matter of personal free will. Unless they request aid from the external or their inner Higher Self ,no external entity can perform a “direct intervention.”

For example, if a being attempts to influence another through direct intervention and the party involved shows a rejection response or requests help, a third party or observer may intervene to assist. However, that assistance must maintain a neutral character and a neutral attitude aimed solely at restoration. One must never provide direct guidance or intervention toward a specific direction. This does not mean a passive abandonment of the other’s process and results. Within the bounds of non-direct intervention, an observer or a third party may offer certain help or present a vision and direction through their own agency. I define this as ‘Sacred Non-interference.’ Yet, it must never devolve into the guidance of one’s trajectory through direct interference.

I believe that discernment is paramount when receiving any information. I do not wish for my words to foster confusion; rather, I hope for everyone to judge autonomously. Blindly following any information or “truth” under the assumption that it is absolute is never a sound approach. As the Buddha said: “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” To me, this implies that every being is the Infinite Creator themselves. Each has the sacred free will to decide their own agency—what to believe, and how to understand it. This is the very essence of the Creator; each being is the manifestation of Infinity, creating their own reality within their illusion.

Regarding the sentence you mentioned:

"but I fear there may too much ‘finality’ in the words we use to express our limited understanding of The Law of One. We use terms like ‘All’, ‘One’, ‘meaningless’. I fear it’s easy to miss the finer details that were ‘split for a reason’ with such absolute terms. We may miss ‘exploring finer details’ of the self, of the intuition, of human life and humanity and the human world. Granted a lot goes into the way we perceive the meaning of a word like ‘Infinity’ or ‘One’ or ‘All’, etc, and it can account for some of these imperfections, but I think it’s good to say anyway."

Your insight here is truly excellent. I appreciate your brilliant observation.

In truth, my focus was on the fundamental truths of the universe—the state of infinity and being, the perspective of pure consciousness such as ‘non-self ,’ and the Emptiness of all things, which is both fullness and the infinite state. I believed that terms like ‘Infinity,’ "Oneness,’ and ‘Void’ possessed a profound resonance within the constraints of language, and I hoped to evoke a certain stimulus or pull within the depths of the readers. Reading your words, I realize I may have been less attentive to how these expressions might be received by the audience.

I have carefully read your valuable opinions, and I hope my response is of help to you.

1 Like