What the Law of One really means?

From the Law of One book 5. Fragment 55:

Apparently, if Carla had chosen to meet difficulties in
completing our lease agreement with our landlord by allowing a feeling of
separation from him to occur or had allowed this same feeling of separation
to grow for Don as he hemmed and hawed about what house to choose in
Atlanta, that allowing of separation of self from other-self could have been
energized by our negative friend until her self was separated from her
physical vehicle, and her incarnation would have been at its end. She had to
deal with our landlord, who had numerous requirements for our leaving
that he felt justified in making, and with Don’s mental condition, which
was beginning to show further signs of the long-term stress to mind and
body that commuting and worrying about his job had brought about.

So here we get to the very end. The Penultimate "Fragment" in the last book of the Law of One. And we finally get a direct understanding of what the Law of One actually means in the real world. We finally get a real definition relevant to the real world. 

I had not completely understood or known what it meant and in truth. I read the Law of One because of all it's wisdom. Not because I am consciously trying to learn the Law of One per sey. But in thinking through what it meant, I did not have a clear idea. I did wonder if Stefan Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behaviour. Which relies on Universality, and kind of "is" the Law of One might be relevant. As though it was not a 'felt' thing, but a kind of guideline to start off theoretical, philosophical and theological concerns. But that's not what this line is saying. 

Jims casual description of "that he felt justified in making". Makes me think that the requirements were not justified. That they were dealing with someone that was quite unpleasant. I have always felt very strongly, as I am sure that most of us do. That people that do negative things, that I define as negative of course. Deserve pushback, and that this is a good thing. 

It is probably the same situation for most people. It is probably a single learning. But it is not completely clear that say... Don would have experienced the 'lesson' in the same way. We learned from the moment that Don and Carla swapped energies temporarily. That Don did contain a whole lot of energy that was a lot tougher that he just generally carried. Don was also referenced as getting in arguments a bit more without suffering health problems at the same time. So it could be that because Carla is a 'love' person, that she experienced this, but Don as a 'wisdom' person, would experience the whole thing differently?

Nevertheless, these sessions are still giving me things to think over. 

Questioner: What would that be?

Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, we would suggest that possibility/probability vortices include those in which the entity known as Gandalf has a lengthier incarnation. Secondly, we would suggest that this entity goes to a graduation if it desires. Otherwise, it may choose to reincarnate to be with those companions it has loved. Thirdly, the entity known to you as Betty has the means of making the entity more distorted towards comfort/discomfort.

Carla mentions this in the write up before. She states that her new cat she feels is the reincarnation of the last one. The Law of One contact would seemed to have confirmed that. I have seen someone else mention this on the forum. That her new dog seemed to recognise her and have the same habits as a previous dog. 

My family dog. We have had three. The first was a female Staffy. English Staffy. The second was a kind of wolf. The third is an American Staffy. 

I had dreams. Very specific dreams about something the American Staffy had experienced and how it effected her before she came to the family. I was quite interested that the forces behind the dream. The higher forces of some description. Actually cared about the psychology of a dog. The Law of One does make small references to higher entities caring about this. 

I believe, since we can't really understand what goes on in the life between lives. Time/ space, as the Law of One calls it. That it is very unhealthy to make defined statements about it. There is no grounding in saying that someone was this or that past life. It also leads the door open to people that would attempt to use that kind of mystical thinking for fraudulent means. Rather like David Wilcock. Who told everyone about frequent mystical experiences to prove any particular thing he wanted to prove. Such as that he was a messiah or that Corey Goode was legit. 

Staring at the dog the other day I contemplated how someone would know such a thing. How they would experience the world if they could perceive such a thing.

Specific insights. 

Anyway, the particular insight I had, the particular part of my life where I was like "I should think of this person in a more service to others manner". It directly, directly opposed the insight I had from strong dreams when I started Communion about four years ago. I have talked recently about this. The Communion insight I had came from a kind of dream I have identified as perhaps negative. Altogether too clear. Altogether too direct. It fed into the worst instincts that I took from reading the Law of One. The idea that this or that negative thing is destroying a situation. That it (as well as people) needs to be guarded against. 

It also fed directly into the delusions David Wilcock was spouting at the time about being abducted by Reptilians. 

I have a continued question, and that question is this: In relation to all these spiritual things. I am really waiting, wanting one that feeds directly into the real world. Just a thing, where there is some sort of click and it effects the real world. 

The Law of Attraction makes this claim. I have never really liked the Law of Attraction. These insights are doing that in a way. But I wonder if that is the thing that creates a click into the real world. The insight I have just had into my relationships. Does that feed meaningfully into future ones? I think it probably does.