Day Thirteen of the Chronicle:

What’s the frequency, Kenneth?

About thirty years ago I was working a government job in another city. It was a four-month contract. This was back in my unattached days. One of my co-workers was a French-Canadian we’ll name G. We’d take coffee/smoke breaks at the same time. She started telling me about her aunt who was interested in meeting me. I had no problem with that. Back in the days before cellphones and computer games, being on your own in a strange city meant not much to do. Anyway, a meet-up was arranged.

We’ll call the aunt, V. She was high-school educated, from a strict Catholic upbringing, and it turned out that while she might have wanted to meet me, in truth it was someone else who wanted to meet me. And that someone was noncorporeal, because V. was engaged in something called Automatic Writing, and the primary entity she was in communication with was someone called MT (and I did immediately wonder if this entity was being facetious with that name. MT/em/tee/empty).

Being of a skeptical nature, I entered into the ‘communication’ with the intention of debunking the whole thing. V. was bilingual but not particularly well-read; in conversation her diction level was fairly standard. MT, it turned out, was a whole other story. Depending on the energy levels, V. could end up writing so fast her hand would cramp up or her forearm would end up trembling with exhaustion. At times the looping writing style would extend beyond the lines of the page, or run wild down the line to the page’s edge, with G. scrambling to bring up a clean page.

So here I found myself involved in an extended conversation with MT over the course of my work-term in that city. At times, MT and I were deeply engaged in what was almost a private language between the two of us, with our witnesses (including V.) having no idea what we were going on about. There was great humor in this entity, but it was also not afraid to chastise (I recall being told to ‘stop honing the fatuous,’ which was hardly something any normal person would say, and given that this admonition was coming from a city I no longer lived in, across half the country, via a typed letter, and yet pointed directly to something I was up to at the time, I could only nod and say ‘all right, MT, I hear you’).

MT’s cadence was unusual. The diction level was exceptionally high, including the use of many foreign words and phrases. We would argue philosophy. We would have bouts where we exchanged a Socratic method of discourse. I would often write my questions and hide them from both V and her niece, and then test to see if MT’s responses in any way answered or addressed my written queries (sometimes the responses were obscure; other times they were direct responses). There were times when our exchanges went too fast for V. to even keep up.

After I left the job and ended up living far away, we stayed in contact, and V. even flew out for a week-long stay one time, during which we continued the MT conversation.

I can’t be sure why, but V. and I eventually lost contact with one another. I was moving around a lot. But maybe also I wasn’t ready to accommodate the implications of the entire exchange.

Sometime around then, I recall having a flying dream one night in which child-like voices were calling me into the night-sky, inviting me to join them. I was sort of bouncing higher and higher, and each moment of what seemed to be true flight was utterly euphoric, but something would always drag me back down, and that something was more or less the conscious recognition of the fact that I was flying. As if to say: if you think about it, it goes away. When I woke up my sense of loss, and lost opportunity, was so intense I had tears in my eyes. And as much as I desired to return to that dream world, and those delightful voices, I never did. I’ve occasionally had flying dreams since, but none possessed that level of joy and wonder. It was the kind of experience that if I had indeed managed to ‘join’ the ones inviting me upward, I would probably never have returned.

Jump ahead thirty years. As part of the project I was working on at the time (eight months ago up until about four months ago) I was doing a lot of research. Esoteric research. UFO stuff, mostly. Following the Kundalini experiences, I extended that research of the esoteric, and I continue that pursuit to this day. One book leads to the next. UFOlogy to New Age to Spiritualism to ‘ancient astronaut theorists’ to books and series of books purporting to recount the channeling of extraterrestrial/extradimensional entities via automatic writing, trance-states, and so on.

By this means I stumbled onto the series of books known as the Law of One. Look it up if you want more details. There’s five books in all. The entity defines itself as a group yet names itself in the singular as Ra. For the past week and a half I have been reading these books.

The first thing I took note of was Ra’s language and cadence. I recognized it. It reminded me of MT. Just like MT, Ra had difficulty with numbers, with the translation thereof, and with the sensitivity necessary to discern them. And like MT, Ra often used archaic or rarely used words, and often the specific meaning of these words were themselves archaic, or oddly connotative rather than denotative in the context in which they were used (ie poetic). That said, Ra is a lot clearer than MT ever was (the difference, I suspect, wasn’t just in the medium – with MT it was automatic writing while with Ra it was the spoken word by an ‘instrument’ in a trance state – but also with the nature of the entity’s intent. MT seemed much more personal, more one-on-one with V. [and with me when I was communicating with it]; more like a therapist than a teacher. Also, MT was more playful in its use of semantics).

Well. I’m reading this Law of One stuff. The first book and then the second. And Ra is essentially describing a cosmology, its rules, its metaphysics, its hierarchy, its relationship to us and our history. I’m reading with an open mind although sometimes my mind wants to close, not out of denial, but because this cosmology and the future it describes for humanity is no match for what I would like to imagine our future to be like (say, like, Star Trek: a united planet, lots of aliens and cool space ships). Instead, I’m being told about a future of ascending planes of existence, a spiritual evolution that pretty much sets aside technology, and I’m being told about a fairly basic framework of two opposing (warring) world-views (positive and negative) locked in an eternal struggle even though the ultimate goal of each is identical. In essence, either you serve others or you serve yourself. The former is the positive and the latter is the negative. But not ‘negative’ in a necessarily pejorative sense even though serving the self is all about a small elite ruling over an enslaved majority, projected across the entire galaxy (and hey, what’s negative about that? [hmm, where the Irony emoticon?] Although there may be a hidden irony in that the most active of these aliens of the negative, intent on conquering our planet, come from Orion, since in the fictional Star Trek universe the Orions are nasty … slavers. Ha ha).

I’ve read a lot of Science Fiction. I guess that what find myself instinctively retreating from is that Ra’s description of our future is actually (to me) intrinsically less interesting than what a whole lot of SF writers have created via their own imaginations.

Though I won’t live long enough to see it, I do like to think that one day we’ll get off this planet and expand outward; that we’ll become a spacefaring species and civilization. If Ra is real and if Ra is right, it won’t be like that at all. And so I grieve for the possible loss of my dream (and the optimism that comes with it).

My other observations on these Law of One books? For what it’s worth…

  1. Ra is extraordinarily consistent with regard to details. The metaphysics are complicated, hierarchical and yet tempered by numerous forms of biofeedback. It’s heavy reading at times. But not contradictory.
  2. The voice of Ra is also very consistent, in tone, cadence, in its adherence to its own rules of what can and cannot be communicated (barring the meta-query of ‘why communicate at all if Free Will is to be so strictly adhered to?’). There are rules relating to Free Will and there is the Law of Confusion to keep us guessing.
  3. The science in Ra seems plausible once one accepts the notion of multiverse theory and quantum and post-quantum mechanics (can it even be called post-quantum? Rather than just an expansion of the Quantum rabbit-hole?), not to mention Biocentrism (which I have come to believe is true).
  4. Ra’s description of human evolution, genetics and cultural history are, while unlikely, consistently possible, provided one assumes we don’t know our past as well as we think we do, and that certain areas of dogma persist within relevant fields of study and analysis of evidence, and this dogma exists to defend the generally accepted paradigm. These books were first published in the early Eighties. A lot has happened since that can put to the test Ra’s assertions … thus far, I’ve found nothing egregiously contrary (and I know the subjects of history, archaeology and physical anthropology rather well).

But the purpose of this discussion is to give a context for the following quote from Book II of the Law of One, because finally, unexpectedly, Ra discussed Kundalini. Holy crap did I sit up.

Here is the relevant exchange:

QUESTIONER: Will you expand on the positive and negative polarizations in general and how they apply to individuals and planets, etc? I think there is a correlation here, but I’m not sure.

RA: I am Ra. It is correct that there is a correlation between the energy field of an entity of your nature and planetary bodies, for all material is constructed by means of the dynamic tension of the magnetic field. The lines of force in both cases may be seen to be much like the interweaving spirals of the braided hair. Thus positive and negative wind and interweave forming geometric relationships in the energy fields of both persons, as you would call a mind/body/spirit complex, and planets.

The negative pole is the south pole or the lower pole. The north or upper pole is positive. The crisscrossing of these spiraling energies form primary, secondary, and tertiary energy centers. You are familiar with the primary energy centers of the physical, mental, and spiritual body complex. Secondary points of the crisscrossing of positive and negative center orientation revolve about several of your centers. The yellow-ray center may be seen to have secondary energy centers in elbow, in knee, and in the subtle bodies at a slight spacing from the physical vehicle at points describing diamonds about the entity’s naval area surrounding the body.

One may examine each of the energy centers for such secondary centers. Some of your peoples work with these energy centers, and you call this acupuncture. However, it is to be noted that there are most often anomalies in the placement of the energy centers so that the scientific precision of this practice is brought into question. Like most scientific attempts at precision, it fails to take into account the unique qualities of each creation.

The most important concept to grasp about the energy field is that the lower or negative pole will draw the universal energy into itself from the cosmos. Therefrom it will move upward to be met and reacted to by the positive spiraling energy moving downward from within. The measure of an entity’s level of ray activity is the locus wherein the south pole outer energy has been met by the inner spiraling positive energy.

As an entity grows more polarized this locus will move upward. This phenomenon has been called by your peoples the kundalini. However, it may better be thought of as the meeting place of cosmic and inner, shall we say, vibratory understanding. To attempt to raise the locus of this meeting without realizing the metaphysical principles of magnetism upon which this depends is to invite great imbalance.

QUESTIONER: What process would be the recommended procedure for correctly awakening the kundalini and of what value would that be?

RA: I am Ra. The metaphor of the coiled serpent being called upwards is vastly appropriate for consideration by your peoples. This is what you are attempting when you seek. There are, as we have stated, great misapprehensions concerning this metaphor and the nature of pursuing its goal. …

We have two types of energy. We are attempting then, as entities in any true color of this octave, to move the meeting place of inner and outer natures further and further along or upward along the energy centers. The two methods of approaching this with sensible method are first, the seating within one’s self of those experiences which are attracted to the entity through the south pole. Each experience will need to be observed, experienced, balanced, accepted, and seated within the individual. As the entity grows in self-acceptance and awareness of catalyst the location of the comfortable seating of these experiences will rise to the new true color entity. The experience, whatever it may be, will be seated in red ray and considered as to its survival content and so forth.

Each experience will be sequentially understood by the growing and seeking mind/body/spirit complex in terms of survival, then in terms of personal identity, then in terms of social relations, then in terms of universal love, then in terms of how the experience may beget free communication, then in terms of how the experience may be linked to universal energies, and finally in terms of the sacramental nature of each experience.

Meanwhile the Creator lies within. In the north pole the crown is already upon the head and the entity is potentially a god. This energy is brought into being by the humble and trusting acceptance of this energy through meditation and contemplation of the self and of the Creator.

Where these energies meet is where the serpent will have achieved its height. When this uncoiled energy approaches universal love and radiant being the entity is in a state whereby the harvestability of the entity comes nigh.

QUESTIONER: Will you recommend a technique of meditation?

RA: I am Ra. No.


Quoted from: The Law of One, Book II, pp 124-126

Schiffer Publishing, Copyright 1982

For clarification: entity, creation, and mind/body/spirit complex all refer to a person, to you and your body (although ‘entity’ can be used in a broader sense to include Ra itself). Red Ray (and other colors not mentioned in this quote) are hierarchical levels of life expression; the list in that same paragraph (the ‘sequentially understood’ paragraph) state those levels without the corresponding colors. Every one of Ra’s responses begin with ‘I am Ra.’ This may seem redundant but it isn’t: there’s always the risk the session gets hijacked by another entity.

As I said, this exchange got my attention big time. Which is not to say I entirely comprehend Ra’s communication here. I don’t. For example, the experiences ‘which are attracted to the entity through the south pole’ and are therefore ‘negative’ in polarization, are not intrinsically ‘bad.’ In fact, they are necessary. Whereas elsewhere in the text, ‘negative’ does possess its obvious pejorative meaning. While ‘balance’ is always emphasized, there remains a definite bias towards the positive (as in ‘serving others’), and the big cosmic war going on over our heads (with every meaning of the phrase taken into consideration here) is all about negative and positive forces battling it out (where the good guys are weaker in their tactics while the bad guys are doomed in their strategy, more or less).

Yeah, it’s complicated.

So how do I apply this quoted passage to my own Kundalini experiences? To be honest, I haven’t quite worked that out yet. Am I, in my clearly evident ignorance, inviting ‘great imbalance’ (presumably internal)? I see how that ‘spiraling’ of energies mimics the DNA helix in a sweetly fractal way, and I get the basic principles of magnetism insofar as high school physics can deliver, but magnetism in a spiritual sense is a bit more ambiguous.

Do those ‘experiences’ refer to the Kundalini’s acting upon me (and bed, pillow, and blanket) from an external point? Or are they what I bring to the entire event via my imagination? If the former, the ‘seating’ thereof, involving being ‘observed, experienced, balanced,’ and ‘accepted,’ all seems to fit under the umbrella of ‘surrendering’ as advocated by S. Although ‘balance’ seems to be a function of autonomy rather than will-power. If the latter – what my imagination brings to the experience – does that mean anything goes?