Hi everyone, this is Austin Bridges welcoming you to the L/L Research Podcast, In the Now, Episode #39. L/L Research is a nonprofit organization dedicated to freely sharing spiritually-oriented information and fostering community, and towards this end has two websites: the archive website, LLResearch.org; and the community website, Bring4th.org. During each episode, those of us at L/L Research form a panel to consider questions from spiritual seekers. Our panel consists of Jim McCarty, husband to the late Carla Rueckert, scribe for the Ra contact and president of L/L Research, along with Gary Bean and myself, who are working hard to keep the mission of L/L Research alive and well; each of us a devoted seeker and student of the Law of One. We intend this podcast to be a platform of discussion as we consider questions from spiritual seekers that often challenge us to articulate our own perspective. Our replies to these questions are not final nor authoritative; instead, they are generally subjective interpretations stemming from our own studies and life experiences. We always ask each who listens to exercise their own discernment and listen for their own resonance in determining what is true for them. If you would like to submit a question for the show, please do so; our humble podcast relies on your questions. You may either send us an email at or go to www.LLResearch.org/podcast for further instructions. Again, I’m Austin and we are embarking on a new episode of L/L Research’s weekly podcast, In the Now. Gary and Jim, are we ready to do this show?

Let us embark.

I believe so.

All righty. Jumping straight to our questions, the first one today comes from Cory via email, who writes:

I have been reading the Aaron/Q’uo Dialogues recently and encountered a passage that spoke of the yellow-ray energy center as relating to will and determination. I know most of the teaching in the Law of One describes anything related to the yellow ray to center around relationships towards groups, legal relationships, and relationships in general that don’t fall into the orange-ray type of relationship, mainly self and others. I don’t remember reading much about the idea that the yellow ray is also related to will and determination and was wondering if you could expand on that at all and possibly give some examples of how will and determination play into yellow-ray activity in our daily lives and what blockages related to that might look like.

And the winner of the coin flip today was Gary.

Yea! Lucky me. So, Cory, I think that there is will present in every energy center, actually. There is red-ray will to survive, perhaps even to procreate. There is orange-ray will to achieve or avoid the desires, beliefs, and blockages of the orange ray and on up the spectrum. The more that the self is known and it becomes self-accepted and balanced, the more that the mind/body/spirit complex integrates that will, such that each chakra contributes to the overall will as do individual notes contribute to a melody. Will at the yellow ray, I suppose, would manifest at that level according to the self’s desires and blockages and beliefs that pertain to that chakra, along with the overall polarity of the self.

So, two simple examples: The will of the negatively-oriented being at the yellow-ray level would be seeking to manipulate, dominate, and control groupings, finding strategies to assert personal power and to resist surrendering or yielding its personal will to anything save for that which is perceived as advantageous. The will, on the other hand, of the positively-oriented being at the yellow-ray level would be seeking to work in harmony with groups, finding ways to love and support others, and to contribute its will in a way that does not impose upon, but is in harmony with, others. Such concludes my reply.

That was excellent. Jim, what are your thoughts on it?

Yeah, that was a good job, Gary. The orange and yellow rays both, as far as the maturity of the individual, are sort of like the childhood and adolescence of my point of view: as we mature and move towards the green ray, which would be the ray that would allow us to be graduated into the fourth density, that would represent our spiritual maturity here in third density. So, as Gary was saying, I think that the exercise of the will in both the orange, and especially in the yellow ray, is something that is part of being able to express yourself as an individual first in the orange ray, so that you can make your points, you can communicate in some way, you can relate and you can emotionally make a statement. In the yellow ray you do the same basic thing, but you do it in groups. You do it so that the group in which you are a part is able to play its part or have its role fulfilled, whatever kind of group it is. I guess, in this particular society in which we live, the major groups that we find ourselves in are workplace groups, military groups and team sports groups, and in these groups there seems to be a competitive nature, in general in our society, I would say.

So the individuals have ambition; they’re trying to work their way up the ladder—the corporate ladder, or the social ladder, political ladder—and get higher. By getting there, they have to exercise their will. So when the group is attempting to exercise its will, it’s attempting, usually, to exercise its will over another group, to beat them: to beat them at a sport, to beat them in sales, to beat them in a war. So, if you also remember that, as Gary was saying, the negative-oriented entities take their basic power from both the orange and yellow rays. When they are able to successfully exert their wills in a way that they’re able to dominate those about them successfully, then they skip over the green and the blue and go directly to the indigo in order to make contact with Intelligent Infinity and achieve their own graduation. So I think that the yellow and the orange rays are where we basically develop our will, and in the green ray we can figure out whether or not we want to develop in the positive or the negative sense, and then attempt to, if we’re in the positive sense, give service to others by exercising our will in that service. Austin, what do you think?

I think that was a good answer, too. I have found the part in the Aaron/Q’uo Dialogues that mentions this, and it did not surprise me that it was Aaron that referenced the third chakra like this, because Aaron’s teachings are grounded in Buddhism and the idea of the third chakra being related to concepts like will and determination stems from the Dharmic traditions, I think. So these traditions have something in common with the Confederation’s teaching of the energy centers since there are so many correlations between the two. But to me, the ideas of will and determination can be kind of vague. Like Gary said, it seems like every energy center seems to have its own type of will. They seem like concepts that can be applied in different contexts in different ways throughout our lives. So perhaps it’s easiest to look at what we know about the third chakra, or the yellow-ray energy center, from the Confederation and see how those concepts relate to that, specifically, like Gary kind of already has done. Gary and Jim both already did, but I’ll give you my perspective on it. We spoke a lot about the orange ray or the yellow ray in Episode 35, so I won’t go into it in great detail; it was a pretty good discussion, so if you’re interested check that out. But to summarize, Ra constantly refers to it as a social ray, like Cory said in his question, saying that it concerns the entity in relation to groups and societies. And I see it as a sort of social interface—a little bit differently than how Jim or Gary described it, necessarily, but probably compatible. And it’s similar, in my view, to what Carl Jung called the Persona: a type of identity we adopt as we grow up and are influenced by this society so that we gain the ability to interact with it in larger and larger ways and larger and larger groups. It’s sort of our social self and how we present ourselves to the rest of the world: what group we feel we belong to, and how the world sees us, and what group the world sees that we belong to.

And Ra also says that, in the negative sense, this energy center is:

... at the heart of bellicose actions in which one group of entities feel the necessity and [the] right of dominating other groups of entities and bending their wills to the wills of the masters.

Gary and Jim both mentioned that, as well. This bellicosity could be the obvious warlike attitudes, but also may be a much more subtle manipulation and attitude towards groups of peoples. Just in your general attitude, maybe there could be a bellicosity of feeling superior and that affects your actions towards somebody you perceive as being in a particular group. You don’t see them as an individual; you just see them as part of that group. So then how would that will and determination play out for the positive individual if that (what I just said) is how it plays out for the negative individual? And I think Gary gave a great description of this, and I found another description of the third chakra from a traditional yoga website that says, “When you feel self-confident, have a strong sense of purpose, and are self-motivated, your third chakra is open and healthy.” And these things seem to fit pretty perfectly with what we would consider will and determination, and give us a better picture of how it might relate to that positive yellow ray functioning. When we’re comfortable with our social identity and our place in society, we are more effective in our lives and able to interact with people as we please without hesitation, and that enables our will; it enables us to do as we will. And the confidence and the comfort from a stable social identity would help to give us determination in however our path leads us through the social sphere. And I think if a person had a weaker social identity—a blocked yellow ray—they would be less able to interact with other-selves in groups, specifically, more effectively either through a lack of confidence or simply an inability to connect with people. And their will and determination would be diminished by either constant questioning of their own proper place or how others see them, or it would just be laborious to attempt to connect with others through groups at all simply because they lack that ability. And that concludes my thoughts on the situation. Gary or Jim, do either of you have any follow-up thoughts for Cory?

Not I.

Yeah, when you mentioned bellicosity, I think that’s a good point because war is an activity of, presumably, yellow ray. I guess— I mean every chakra would have its place in war, but I think when you see two nation states or two tribal groups go to war, you’re mostly seeing [a] very vivid manifestation of yellow-ray energy, yellow-ray will: my group versus their group, my group versus the enemy and so forth, and— Oh, I had a second thought about war and yellow ray; I think it’s gone.

You’re making a good point because one of the central tenets in training soldiers to fight an enemy is to remove any idea that they’re fighting individuals at all, and that instead, they are fighting a group that is necessarily lesser than they are. If soldiers were confronted with the fact that the people they’re killing are individuals with their own lives—they have families and they have desires, hopes and dreams just like any other individual does—then it’s a much more difficult thing. So, in order to remove that hesitance from the soldiers, they have to say this is a group of people that has lesser traits than we do and they deserve to be subordinate to us. So it’s a good point.

Yeah. I’m sorry, Jim.

No, go ahead.

Yeah, empathy is inimical to the war masters, and one of the first goals of convincing a populace to fight is to villainize the other, especially if you’re on the aggressor side—say, Third Reich Germany or Imperial Japan. I mean, they taught their people that those whom they were conquering and/or invading were definitely inferior to them. And then I did remember my other point, but I’ll give the mic to Jim because Jim was going to say something.

He had a thought! Somebody alert the media. What I was going to say was what Austin was talking about; soldiers are not seen as individuals, they’re seen as homogeneous groups of entities that can be used as— I mean, well, newspapers call them “cannon fodder.” I mean, they’re so homogeneous and so seemingly irrelevant, unimportant; we can describe them that way. But I wanted to make a point about my first teacher of a spiritual nature: T.D. Lingo was in World War II and fought under Patton in the Battle of the Bulge. And toward the end of the war, when the Germans were calling up the old men and young boys (because that’s all that was left to fight) and they entered southern Germany in the countryside, he found an old soldier coming around the corner of a farmhouse, and so he bayoneted him in the gut. It turned out it was a grandfather, and he didn’t die right away so he and Lingo sat on the porch of the farmhouse. And they didn’t speak each other’s language, but the fellow pulled out his wallet and he showed Lingo pictures of his son and his grandchildren, and he became a real person to Lingo. And that point caused Lingo to ask himself after the war, “Why did I have to kill my brother?” He wasn’t an anonymous individual; it wasn’t a nameless entity; it was a human being that had families. So I think the reason we make all the soldiers look the same [is] because then it’s easier to kill’em. And when he discovered they are people just like us, then there isn’t so much of a desire to go out there and to do battle with them. But because of the yellow-ray will of our groups, we are forced (it would seem) by the pressure of society and history and of tradition and of some love of bellicosity, [to] go and do it again. That was my thought.

That’s an incredible story.


Gary, did you want to share your second thought?

Yeah and that’s that … I was trying to think of something to reply to the T.D. Lingo story, but I have nothing to do it justice, so I’ll just continue on with that second thought, and that’s that Austin was describing how part of the yellow ray is simply identification with a social grouping, however that group is defined. And I was considering that, as one transcends the lower chakras and moves into the higher chakras through the processes of unblocking and balancing and activation and self-knowing and self-forgiveness and so forth, as that locus of energy rises from yellow ray, to green ray, to blue ray, to eventually the gateway—to indigo—and one identifies more and more with the Creator or with the All and realizes that the group (if you could say it that way) that one ultimately belongs to is eternity—that one is (like Carla liked to say) a citizen of eternity. Then I think those groups of the yellow ray, though one can still feel they belong to a particular community or race or ethnicity or nation state, those become very opaque to the true self, beyond the illusion of this group or that group. Yeah, that’s pretty much it.

Yeah, it’s a good point that they don’t necessarily go away. I think that that transcendence and identification was something greater, [and] just gives us a broader perspective in which we are then able to see how our social group can relate to other social groups in unified ways and how we can effectively communicate across social groups and basically treat other social groups as equal to our social group. They might be distinct, but there’s no lesser or greater, and there is an effective way of interacting with them that is in service to all.

Yeah. And I still think, from that vantage point, if the social group with which you are identified has become transparent, non-opaque, and you can empathize and see the other social group, I think there’s still part of you that recognizes, though, that you are on a stage and you’re playing this particular role and that group’s playing their particular role and sometimes you have to carry out those roles. The roles are necessarily at odds with one another, but you can do so, like you were saying, by seeing the Creator in the other-self and recognizing the underlying unity between your group and their group, though they may be at odds and forced to play out this particular passion.

Right, and you’re no longer bound by the strictures of your group. So if your group does have as its identity an attitude towards other groups that is less than positive, you are not bound to that attitude anymore. You are able to communicate to your group alternative attitudes and share that with the other group as well … something along those lines.

Yeah, yeah, good point. You’re only doing so to the extent you participate in the group. You’re only doing so by your own volition and consent, not because you are fettered or bound or obligated, so to speak, by the group.

Right. You’re liberated. All righty. Well, we went a little beyond Cory’s original questioning, but that was a fun discussion. Any final thoughts before we move on to the next one?

I don’t think so.

Nope, nope.

All righty. Well, our next question comes from Lily, who writes to us:

In Session 33 Question 16, Ra defines the unmanifested self as the self that does not need other-self to manifest or act. Ra also teaches that other-self is the primary mechanism for catalytic experience in third density, presumably through the manifested self. I am wondering if the unmanifested self is a fixed thing, or if there is a dynamic relationship between the manifested self and unmanifested self similar to that between the conscious mind and subconscious or unconscious mind. Could you comment on this topic?

And I hope that you guys have ideas about the unmanifested self because it has always confused me. So, we’ll turn to Jim first.

Yeah, Lily, I think that there definitely is a dynamic relationship between the unmanifested self and the manifested self. I think that it’s totally fluid. I think that the unmanifested self could be looked at as that personality that we have that’s thoughtful, is interiorized. It has a lot of imagination and I guess you could see it as kind of like the first responder to catalyst. It doesn’t actually do anything about it, although it might help initiate some of the responses that the manifested self would make; but in our unmanifested self, we first consider all kinds of things that are happening. Ra mentioned a number of general areas: mental pain, physical pain, emotional pain, even spiritual pain can often find a place in the unmanifested self to be dealt with. That’s something that we wouldn’t need anybody else to help us with. It’s something [that] would be an interiorized process and that our physical situations—as far as medical situations, you know, birth defects … Ra mentioned birth defects—I would say in the incarnation when we develop certain illnesses, [it is] how we respond to the illness, how we consider our well-being, how we define ourselves. I think that this unmanifested self is sort of what you could kind of look at it as the soul without the information from all previous incarnations. I know it’s a really significant part of ourself. I think it’s something we live with maybe even more than we live with our manifested self if we’re, you know, thoughtful and contemplative in general. But if we’re doers and going out to the world every day of [a] 9 to 5 job, then you probably have a little less activity with the unmanifested self. Although, I think it is impossible to squelch or to hide or stick into a corner that unmanifested self because it’s really kind of where our thinking starts and where our behaviors might have their genesis, that “Well, let’s see, what shall we do about that?” You know, I’m feeling this about that so maybe I should try this. So I think that there is a really dynamic relationship between the unmanifested self and the manifested self and I don’t think, really, that one could exist without the other. What do you all think? Gary?

You’re description of the unmanifested self as kind of a first responder made me think that a greater understanding of the archetypes might yield useful insights on this particular question (which I am not going to be the one to offer because archetypes have always confused me). And I was going to begin my reply as Austin conveyed in his own statement, and that’s that the notion of what the unmanifested self is has confused me. I started out by saying who am I when all that stimulus from other-selves, which constitutes most of our world— We’re in a world where we’re immersed with interfacing our intersections with other-selves. The world is created by us, the collective of humans. So, when I am stripped of all that stimulus leaving just me, my thoughts and my feelings as I generate them, who is that? That’s where I get really confused, because as I mentioned, we’re in a world so thoroughly permeated with other-selves that it’s difficult to imagine a self without other-selves. Even in our most private moments, even if we were to become a hermit for a decade, the material of our minds—conscious and subconscious—is composed of the stuff of relationship with other-selves. So perhaps “unmanifest” points simply to that level of self that hasn’t been potentiated by the catalyst of an other-self. And Ra gives indications of what type of catalyst works upon the unmanifested self, and in so doing helps to map where and what the unmanifest self is. In 33.16 they describe, as Jim was touching on, the catalyst of physical pain. In 61.6, they say that the body complex has natural functions. Many of these have to do with the unmanifested self.

Would you like to go into that?

Going to the bathroom is probably one of the first ones that …

Hey, there you go.

Comes to …

Does not require any other-self to be involved.


Unless you’re really, really young.

71.15 says … Ra says:

In magic one is working with one’s unmanifested self ...

And in the same session, but the fifth question, Ra says that:

... the inevitable connection between the unmanifested self and the metaphysical or time/space analog ... . [And they say:] The activities of meditation, contemplation, and what may be called the internal balancing of thoughts and reactions are those activities ... the unmanifested self more closely aligned with the metaphysical self.

So, one might consider the unmanifested self as the time/space self, the metaphysical self, the self of intentions, and is worked on by meditation, contemplation and so forth. And perhaps anything that’s solitary is—so long as it’s not being done for reasons of impressing another-self or denying another-self or relating to another-self in some way—perhaps solitary work is unmanifest self material. And maybe the unmanifest self becomes the manifest self at the point where the unmanifested self interacts on some level with an other-self becoming, thusly, the manifest self. For instance, Ra describes how the catalyst from the loss of an other-self is “offered” to the unmanifest self. In 34.6 they say:

Very often the catalyst for emotional pain, whether it be ... death of the physical complex of one other-self which is loved or some other seeming loss, will simply result in the opposite, in a bitterness, an impatience, a souring. This is catalyst which has gone awry. In these cases, then, there will be additional catalyst” [here’s the key part] provided to offer the unmanifested self further opportunities for discovering the self as all-sufficient Creator containing all that there is and full of joy.

So this catalyst of the death of another-self is … and … I’m sorry— If that processing of that catalyst goes awry, then additional catalyst is offered, and Ra says ‘to the unmanifested self.’ So, here it seems (and a lot of spec … or interpretation on my part), here it seems that the unmanifested self isn’t an interior self that’s isolated behind a barrier. It is, as I was saying, unmanifest simply because no other-self has catalyzed the manifestation of this self. So in other words, to reply to your question, Lily, there is a relationship between the unmanifest and manifest self precisely at the point where the mirror of the other-self is introduced, in whatever way. Is it fixed or dynamic? Like Jim, I think it’s very dynamic. In 34.9, Ra says:

The unmanifested self may find its lessons those which develop any of the energy influx centers of the mind/body/spirit complex. The societal and self interactions most often concentrate upon the second and third energy centers.

So Ra gives two categories there in those two sentences, and in the first sentence they say that the unmanifested self may find its lessons are those which develop the energy centers … any of the energy centers. So, in other words, if you were on a desert island and never interacted with any other-selves, and it was just you and your unmanifested self there, you could still develop all of your energy centers without the aid of the other-self and still be working within the precinct of unmanifested self so far as I understand. But, importantly, in 19.13, Ra says (I’ve got to read the whole paragraph and then I’ll sign off on my answer), they say:

This catalyst then is shared between peoples as an important part of each self’s development as well as the experiences of the self in solitude and the synthesis of all experience through meditation. The quickest way to learn is to deal with other-selves. This is a much greater catalyst than dealing with the self.

So, Ra’s talking about the manifest self is a quicker way to learn than strictly sticking to the unmanifested self, because Ra goes on to say:

Dealing with the self without other-selves is akin to living without what you would call mirrors. Thus, the self cannot see the fruits of its beingness. Thus, each may aid each by reflection. [And they throw in there because it is relevant to Don’s question:] “This is also a primary reason for the weakening of the physical vehicle, as you call the physical complex.

And so our bodies were weakened in order [that] we would not be strictly unmanifested selves keeping to ourselves, but that we would be forced more or less to work with one another. Austin, what do you think?

I guess my confusion comes from a point … let’s take the catalyst of pain (and this is also an example for Lily how maybe the unmanifested self and the manifested self can interact), and that is, say that you are in a state of pain and your unmanifested self is working upon your unmanifested self and then you have an interaction with an other-self that will necessarily be painted by that pain. So your unmanifested self is then influencing your manifested self’s interactions with other-selves. Or the other direction, let’s say that you have an interaction with an other-self that causes you pain—whether it’s them doing something which pains you, or you doing something which you then regret or feel guilt about or something along those lines—and then that stays with you despite the absence of the other-self being directly in front of you. They are not interacting with you at that moment, but you are still catalyzed by that interaction and you are no longer needing an other-self to manifest that catalyst. Then, it seems to me like that would be pain in the unmanifested self. And that’s sort of the confusing point for me, because at what point is catalyst manifested-self catalyst versus unmanifested-self catalyst? And it seems like to me that most of our catalyst comes from interaction with other-selves, but then is processed in what Ra described as unmanifested-self activities like the meditation, contemplation and balancing. So I’m wondering if it is just a whole system and that it’s just bouncing back and forth between them, or if there is a greater distinction which it seemed like you were drawing, Gary. I don’t really understand it fully, and is there any clarification either of you feel like you have?

Jim, in your and Carla’s very detailed or thorough study of the process of reincarnation and pre-incarnational planning, you came across many cases where somebody intentionally planned a limitation for themselves in an incarnation. Would one of those intentionally-planned limitations be working upon the unmanifested self, and are there any examples you can think of?

Yeah, I imagine that just about all the limitations that are planned … you know, if it’s something like being unable to walk, paralyzed or unable to talk or see … that would very likely necessitate the use of the unmanifested self. I think most of the time it’s those types of incarnational plans [that] are made so that certain qualities of self can be enhanced: the will to persevere under very difficult circumstances, the will to see hope where there seems to be no hope available, any kind of inner strength you need to make it through. I mean, you can just look at anybody that you know, or people in general, in such a situation and just imagine to yourself, “Well, what would I do or how does anybody get through that kind of situation?” And you can be sure that is the reason that person chose it, because there is value in being able to develop those types of inner qualities of strength and of faith and of will and of hope and, you know, still being able to live a life that is valuable and that you see as valuable.

And such a pre-incarnational planning could work dually on both the unmanifested and manifested self: on the unmanifested side of the equation, in ways exactly as you described, Jim, but then on the manifested side, like say for instance, in Carla’s situation, she and you felt that part of her own limitations forced her to learn how to accept the love offerings of others, thus pertaining to the manifest self.

Right. These pre-incarnational choices don’t always … seldom involve only you. They’re usually planned along with other people that are going to be relating to you. We seem to incarnate in groups, in families—in spiritual families—and we change roles back and forth from incarnation to incarnation, and this is to help us learn the various lessons that we have set out for us. We, you know, look back over an incarnation after it’s over: “Well, let’s see, I learned this and this … kind of weak here.” So when we plan our future incarnation, we look at what we need to learn and we have the people around us that have been with us for a long time and we all work together on it. And if there’s one chance that’s missed, we program in chances for other— I mean, Carla, when she was 13 years old her kidneys failed. She had a near-death experience. At that time she could have gone on, but there was also programmed another possibility that she would return and carry out what amounted to two incarnations at once. So, a lot of us do that. We, I mean, there is nothing that happens … like Ra says, there are no mistakes. Everything that happens in every incarnation, without fail, was planned and there is something that you can learn from no matter how confusing the situation, how heinous the crime seems to be; it doesn’t matter. There are always things that you can learn. And we do hopefully learn, and Carla and I certainly did learn a lot in her situation because it involved us both.

It would be very helpful to see what that planning was, but I guess that is what meditation is for. And Austin, you were describing how, you know, where’s the line—you were questioning where’s the line between unmanifest and manifest, considering so much is wrapped up in other-selves, even stuff that seems just to happen to you on a solo basis is probably, you know, there’s probably a good chance there’s a connection to other-selves. And I guess one preliminary metric to attempt to answer that question would be to ask how much are others involved in this and how much does this just pertain to my relationship with myself and so forth. I don’t know how clearly that will yield an answer, but it could be a step in the right direction.

Well, I guess the point that confused me was Ra’s example of somebody dying, and that seems to me like catalyst that requires an other-self because it was an other-self that died. And so that’s not something that is sort of absent of other-selves, but then is processed by the unmanifested self.

I think that’s the important point.


Because everything’s got to have somebody else in it. I mean, if you’ve got pain, somebody helped cause the pain, but you’re dealing with it maybe by yourself.

Yeah, so in relation to Lily’s question, it seems like these two things are extremely dynamic and very, very related, and like you were saying, Jim, at first it’s very fluid things and it’s a hard distinction to draw between the two.


I have a creative interpretation for that particular scenario regarding the death of a loved one and how initially that it definitely concerns, obviously, an other-self and then creates an enormous (probably even tidal wave) of catalyst for the self, but then that moves into the territory of the unmanifested self in terms of reassessing identity or connection with the Creator because … ah, no, then I’m stymying myself. I was thinking about how, you know, we’re all reliant upon one another in our identity even if we don’t always recognize it includes the other-self to some extent. So when that other-self is removed from the equation, then we’re left asking, “Well, who are we?” And then maybe that focus becomes more introspective and moves into the unmanifest, and with the ideal goal being (as Ra goes on to describe in the same sentence) ‘for discovering the self as all-sufficient Creator containing all that there is and full of joy.’

All right.

But yeah, maybe it’s more like an estuary where salt water mixes with fresh water and it’s not always a clear and dividing line.

Yeah, because even in that example, like you were saying, the death of the other-self might cause you to ask who we are. I feel like, in a very general and broad sense, that is the point of all catalyst—is to sort of help us recognize distortions that are keeping us from understanding who we are. So, any other-self interaction has that sort of effect, as well.


To move us back into the unmanifested being I suppose and let go of those distortions. But I think that we did have a pretty good discussion based off of that question. Any final thoughts from either of you?

I think I’m thought out.

Hmm, me, too.

Well, thanks for the question, Lily. And [it] looks like we are about out of time. Jim, any final words for our listeners?

Well, we just want you guys to know we really love you a lot. We thank you for all of the questions you send in. We thank you for listening, we thank you for talking about the show and we thank you for loving each other. We’ll see you in two weeks.

You’ve been listening to L/L Research’s weekly podcast, In the Now. If you’ve enjoyed the show, please visit our websites: LLResearch.org and Bring4th.org. Thanks so much for listening, and a special thank you to those of you who submitted questions. If you’d like to send us a question, please read the instructions on our page at www.LLResearch.org/podcast. New episodes are published to the archive website every other Wednesday afternoon around 1:00 p.m. Eastern. Have a wonderful couple weeks and we will talk with you then.

Thanks to Mary A. for transcribing this episode, and Nancye G. for editing!