Quote:77.19 Questioner: Do the Logoi that choose this type of evolution choose both the service-to-self and the service-to-others path for different Logoi, or do they choose just one of the paths?

Ra: I am Ra. Those, what you would call, early Logoi which chose lack-of-free-will foundations, to all extents with no exceptions, founded Logoi of the service-to-others path. The, shall we say, saga of polarity, its consequences and limits, were unimagined until experienced.

(04-24-2015, 02:53 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: Yet what is the magical property of the equation - "="? What does it mean for something to equal or be equal to something else?

(04-24-2015, 04:15 PM)Minyatur Wrote:

(04-24-2015, 12:51 PM)VanAlioSaldo Wrote: I always thought Free Will was closest expressed in the equation .99 = 1.

The continual forever rising upwards into knowing complete self, facilitated by Free Will.

I'm so happy you guys engage me on these things.  0 = 1 = Infinity, or Infinity = 0 = 1 has been my go to way of explaining the concept of the Original Thought to others, but so far no one has understood it at all.

I actually believe if you want to better understand the ways of the Law of One you can add against/next to everything a INF-Scale or Infinity-Scale that makes that item = Infinity and everything else around it.  Everything can go on the Infinity Scale, everything within the Infinity Scale is in itself an individual Unit but also Equal to all other Units.  While different, they are still the same.

I didn't say much about the OP because it simply went very well with what I had already thought for myself. It was great to see that ideas I've had were included in later portions of the Ra material I haven't even read yet and that others do view things as I view them.

For me it all started with "I am the Alpha and the Omega" in the christian bible. That quote made me think for years about the nature of time and it's relationship with a supreme God. It became evident to me that God could only be the simultaneous beginning and ending of all things and that without this existence does not make any sense.

I get the 0 = 1 = Infinity and it is like what I found for myself but somehow I am not totally satisfied with this. This doesn't give purpose to beingness nor a way for it to be and it remains that it could simply not be.

(04-24-2015, 06:05 PM)Stranger Wrote: This is an interesting thread to me, because a few weeks ago I found myself "randomly" thinking that

1
--     =     ∞
0

and that this reflected the relationship between the Creator and creation.

I'm guessing someone somewhere is beaming this idea towards humanity to aid in its understanding.
I understand it as follows: one is the unitary consciousness of the Creator.  0 represents the fact that when unity divides into countless forms, each single form represents an infinitesimal portion of that oneness.  Yet the infinite number of 0's combined add up to the Great Unity.

(04-24-2015, 07:25 PM)anagogy Wrote:

Minyatur Wrote: If I remember correctly Ra said that Infinity needed to be One for it to be. You can argue that there are infinite sub-infinities within it and that can be hardly wrong as we all are sub-infinities within the One Infinity.

Why do you all think Beingness is a satisfactory answer to Infinity? Nothingness could have been. It's pretty easy you simply need to have no energy whatsoever. Which is why I ask, why is there even energy? To permit beingness maybe? Fine but why could not beingness have not been? In my opinion there was eternal void before or rather simulatenously to eternal beingness. As we experienced infinite beingness, we also experienced infinite nothingness.

Speaking of the One Infinity, I think it is easier to picture it as a singularity. One point into which exists only a matrix of one single wave with simply infinite states. This point has no time, no space, no nothing. Yet from within it's matrix of infinite states exists the potential of all things to be.

Minyatur Wrote: I didn't say much about the OP because it simply went very well with what I had already thought for myself. It was great to see that ideas I've had were included in later portions of the Ra material I haven't even read yet and that others do view things as I view them.

For me it all started with "I am the Alpha and the Omega" in the christian bible. That quote made me think for years about the nature of time and it's relationship with a supreme God. It became evident to me that God could only be the simultaneous beginning and ending of all things and that without this existence does not make any sense.

I get the 0 = 1 = Infinity and it is like what I found for myself but somehow I am not totally satisfied with this. This doesn't give purpose to beingness nor a way for it to be and it remains that it could simply not be.

But see, that is precisely why nothingness could not have been.  If there was a total lack of anything in some hypothetical beginning, there is simply *no way* anything could happen from it.  There are no ingredients in that infinite state of lack for any spark to be lit.  And if there were, it wouldn't have been nothing in the first place.  This is exactly why nothingness is a logical dead end in this department.

When you accept that there is no nothingness, never was, never will be, it all begins to click into place.  There is just infinity, which is everythingness, which at its heart is Beingness, or awareness -- the unblinking eye of consciousness, which is simply *existence itself*, because if there was no observer, could you really say anything existed at all?  The infinite and eternal observer validates the fact that *we are*.  I AM.  I am aware, therefore I am.

Quote:6.7 Questioner: How were you able to make the transition from Venus, and I assume the sixth dimension, which— would that be invisible when you reached here? Did you have to change your dimensions to walk on the Earth?

Ra: You will remember the exercise of the wind. The dissolution into nothingness is the dissolution into unity, for there is no nothingness. From the sixth dimension, we are capable of manipulating, by thought, the intelligent infinity present in each particle of light or distorted light so that we were able to clothe ourselves in a replica visible in the third density of our mind/body/spirit complexes in the sixth density. We were allowed this experiment by the Council which guards this planet.

When I used to meditate on this question, of why there is anything at all, I was offered the image of a kind of central sun, or infinity star.  The brightness of which, was of infinite strength.  Of course, the image was only a symbol, but I was able to generally extrapolate the symbolism from the image, to the best of my ability.  The light that radiated off the star was truth itself.  As it radiated from the Source of truth it would thin out, or attenuate, the further it stretched away from the center of truth, or love and light.  It wasn't just truth, it was also infinite love, unity, and infinite action, or aliveness, or what we think of as "energy".  The void of darkness that surrounded the star was falsity.  It was simply the lack of truth.  That is what made it darkness, as opposed to light.  There was no actual opposite to existence, just the illusion of one.  The light that radiated toward this darkness would not disappear it just thinned out to the point where it would have what it perceived, as experiences of illusion or falsity.  Of darkness.  It would even get confused and think it was separate from the rest of the light (this is not actually possible).  Eventually it would reach the limits of the illusory void of falsity (which as I said, was actually just attenuated truth, or those nooks and crannies of infinity that allowed for perspectives of consciousness with less than total congruency with infinite unity), and it would bounce off it and make a return trip to the center of the star.

This was the inevitable heart beat of existence.  The focusing outwards and inwards till the focuses were complete.  It is an eternal heartbeat, and octave to octave is a heart beat of this divine source.

I am reminded of a quote attributed to Michelangelo, "I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free."

The point is, the angel was already in the statue, and Michelangelo simply whittled away all that was not the statue.  And thus, the creation was apparent.  That is *precisely* how our illusion of reality was culled out of the infinity that was already there.  The parameters of the illusion were carved out of the plenum of everythingness, and the *illusory* opposite to Existence, Truth, or Oneness, became the contrasting backdrop of that creation.

The marble, or plenum of infinite possibilities, so to speak, was always there.  Always has been.  I realize this is hard for the mind to grasp, but I feel very strongly this was so.  And all these experiences, we seem to be having, are just portions of that infinity that were always there.  It is our identification with portions of this infinity which gives us the perception of moving through change.  No change is actually occurring however.  When you are one with everything, you can identify with anything, and create an illusory separation between it, and everything else.  We identify as persons, and so we seem to be persons.  But we are really infinite Beingness.   

We only perceive what we do, because we have forgotten the rest of infinity that is still always and forever there, but is obfuscated by our current perspective of consciousness.

Ra Wrote:6.7 Questioner: How were you able to make the transition from Venus, and I assume the sixth dimension, which— would that be invisible when you reached here? Did you have to change your dimensions to walk on the Earth?

Ra: You will remember the exercise of the wind. The dissolution into nothingness is the dissolution into unity, for there is no nothingness. From the sixth dimension, we are capable of manipulating, by thought, the intelligent infinity present in each particle of light or distorted light so that we were able to clothe ourselves in a replica visible in the third density of our mind/body/spirit complexes in the sixth density. We were allowed this experiment by the Council which guards this planet.

(04-25-2015, 03:49 AM)Tan.rar Wrote: Try this meditation.

Go back to the beginning of your life and think about your birth. Realize that your birth is simultaneous with this moment.

Realize then that with your birth was simultaneously every birth, every being was born at the exact same time. Extend this to all forms of life. Then extend this to all forms of non-organic life and structures. Your birth coincided with the birth of all things. There was and has only ever been one birth in which all things were born. The only apparent difference is due to relativity of time, of angles of experience. There has only been one birth, however, one beginning, if you would call it that, for the beginning is also the end.

Consider your birth was also the birth of the Earth, the Sun and the Galaxy. They did not diverge only in space but in time at this one birth which occurs simultaneously. Consider then that ALL lives occurs simultaneously. Everything and everyone who is any age is also the same in time as all others whom are that age. We appear separate in time and space, but this is an illusion, in fact regardless of where you are in the time-line, the same years occur simultaneously. All those who are 10 are existing in the same 'year'. All those who are 25 also are existing in the same 'year'. These years are parallel.

Thus, you begin to see that there is in fact only One Life, that of the One Infinite Creator whom has been born once. This means that when we die, when you die, that is also the 'death' of the One Infinite Creator. All deaths occur simultaneously as well. When one dies, they are actually at the same point in time when all deaths occurs. When one dies, they encounter the realm of all death, where everyone dies. Thus, we all are born, live and die in perfect simultaneity. However, we perceive differences through the illusion of time and space. It appears as though some live and die before or after others. In fact, it all happens at once.

Now see that birth, life and death all occur simultaneously. In fact when we are being born, we are also living and experiencing death and then being reborn. This cycle happening infinitely is consciousness. Birth, life, death, rebirth. This revolution of awareness through the phases of infinity is reflected as a journey from the Void to Everything and back to Void, a complete path to and from the One.

There is only the moment in which there is this simultaneity. That is the One Infinite Creator and what I am. I am that moment occurring. In it there is everything and nothing and that is the self.

(04-25-2015, 05:14 AM)Tan.rar Wrote: Oh, last thought. If you want to add to nothing, you change the equation.

1 = 0

1 + 0 = 1 (= 0?) (Reciprocal Theory says Yes, if 0 + 1 then 1 + 0, both equal 1)

Addition is light, radiation. This is equilibrium tipped towards growth, towards positive number expansion. Negative is 'darkness' or absorption, equilibrium tipped towards decay, negative number expansion.

The question here then is, what occurs to make the equilibrium (=) become positive (+) or negative (-)? Thus we have the conundrum and drama of free will and the epoch of experience it is taking to understand this simple equation, nevermind multiplication and division...

So goes the saga of polarity.

Quote:77.19 Questioner: Do the Logoi that choose this type of evolution choose both the service-to-self and the service-to-others path for different Logoi, or do they choose just one of the paths?

Ra: I am Ra. Those, what you would call, early Logoi which chose lack-of-free-will foundations, to all extents with no exceptions, founded Logoi of the service-to-others path. The, shall we say, saga of polarity, its consequences and limits, were unimagined until experienced.

(04-25-2015, 01:41 PM)Sabou Wrote: Great points minytaur and tan.rar, I keep wanting to chime in, but it I keep seeing my thoughts reflected already within all three of your responses. do any of you feel that this subject can reach any degree of resolution within your mind or is it more an exercise of contemplation?

VanAlioSaldo Wrote: Though 'No-thing' is possible, it is paradox, it can be, but will still be some-thing, it is not the TRUE ABSOLUTE ABSENCE OF, where a Void, or Primordial Void, or absolute Lack of Being is occurring.  It is simply another Unit for the Creator, it is 0, and I appreciate it and extend love out to even that contextual absence of, that illusion that is still being that is paradoxically not/is.  Nothing, is still Something.  Do you understand how I'm thinking?  No-thing, is still Some-thing because it is named, it has context added, it is imagined, it is outer space, it is a vacuum in space, it is the center of a black hole, it is everything to some people, nihilistic, pointless and empty, nothing worth it, and it is nothing to others, no sign of emptiness and nothingness.

Nothing does exist, and I will lovingly hold in that belief and tell you that not only will I remain in this belief, but point out that this belief actually adds up with yours.  You are saying that an absolute lack of being is impossible.  I agree.  You're saying an emptiness is not possible, I wholeheartedly disagree.  You then refer to it as attenuated truth, is that not 'something' then?  Nothing as Something is not Nothing, it is exactly what I said it is, a paradox, Something/Nothing.  A Somenothing of Attenuated Truth that aids the Light in the exact way you described.

You come off very forthcoming and powerful with disagreeing with another line of reasoning.  Saying it cannot be.  I just want to point out that All I Truly Know, is that I know nothing.  With this logic in mind I try to tread carefully when telling others that they're wrong.  I actually dislike doing so, I think there's a more positive way to approach the matter.  That however doesn't mean I don't refer to exactly what you're doing though, because it works.  It's powerful and insightful.  But I am too, I like to think anyways.

I believe in Simultaneity, that agrees with Unity and Infinity in design and concept.  It does not allow for whatever word you would use for the term void, without actually existing or not existing, but simply unbeing.  I think Doctor Who called it the Forgotten or Never-Were's?  No, wait, a better idea is the episode where the Dalek's build a Void Ship in order to set off a Reality Bomb to literally wipe out all Creation making them the One remaining Being -braingasm-
The concept simply cannot be for it all, Nothingness, Void, Emptiness, it all has context, inference, meaning, referent, it is attached, conceptually it is attached, contextually it is attached, it can manifest, it can Be.  But that other thing, that true emptiness and lack thereof beingness.  I don't have a word for whatever that is.  I don't know what to call it because it is not something I dare try to believe.  To mistake Nothingness for that is the madness I've read a few people have already gone through on this forum.  I'm one of them.

I must thus, fiercely contest that notion that the Nothingness I refer to is the nothingness you speak of.  As I said, you speak of something I do not have a word for.  Something you speak of I do not believe can be thought of.  I do think, I really do think Doctor Who had the closest concept to this idea, those things that Never-Were, that once were, but now have gone out of existence, have become gone, and never-were.  I do not think that is possible or true or real.  If anything, if there is a hellish empty void-pit of maddening horror, a real hell (which I don't but it's sometimes fun to imagine I guess).  The very center of it would be the closest thing to whatever that is that you speak of.

(04-25-2015, 08:23 PM)anagogy Wrote: The problem with "nothingness" existing is that if nothingness exists, it is then "something", and certainly not nothing.  Nothingness cannot exist for that logical reason alone.  Having a word for a hypothetical state of infinite lack makes it sound like it can exist, like some sort of object, but by its very definition, it cannot exist.  If it does exist, then it is not nothingness.  Do you see my point?

(04-26-2015, 06:40 AM)VanAlioSaldo Wrote: Do you think a person committing suicide does not think nothingness doesn't exist?  I think some of them might literally prefer that thought to an actual afterlife consequence effect.  Making it in effect closer and closer to their reality as they desire it more and more.

...In a lot of NDE reports, like on nderf.org, about suicides there are some people who after venturing into the spirit world come across several doors.  Some good and some suicidal come across a door of a 'yellow plane where other people, souls, would walk aimlessly, slowly with their heads down, as if lost, so lost they'd bump into each other.  It was a place of separation, a kindness at the least in that they had no idea where they were, but were always present within and without.

I wonder if they think nothingness isn't real, even after realizing they were never alone.

(04-26-2015, 06:40 AM)VanAlioSaldo Wrote: Would that polarity not allow in it a consequence of an experiencing the illusion of wholly being separated?  Does Kundalini not have the capacity to accidentally cause harm, does unintended fast polarization not cause trauma?  Is a potential not the illusion of nothingness being experienced unknown, individually, as if it were truly real?

(04-26-2015, 06:40 AM)VanAlioSaldo Wrote: I almost feel like I should fear explaining this any further... That I'll begin over simplifying it to an annoying point.

Have I made this any clearer?  I am agreeing with you.  Are you disagreeing with me...Or...?

(04-27-2015, 04:53 AM)VanAlioSaldo Wrote: I should mention, I look at paradoxes as a means of a logical aid to go from a perspective of separateness to wholeness.  We start off believing ourselves separate in incarnation.  You may have the belief aspect of singleness.  I do not.  I do not literally see everything as one despite now believing I know it.  Thus I look for my 3D answer to bridge me to 6D understanding.

Consciousness has to be more than perspective.  One could argue consciousness IS beingness in itself but its hard to say.

Why do you think infinity can't spawn an illusion of a void?  Or do you?  Because I do.  I dont think it can spawn a compete lack of itself, not without trauma of some sort that I imagine is avoided if ever discovered and healing provided to any who might've stumbled upon that. Or maybe not.  It is hard to say.

(04-27-2015, 06:20 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: What is the difference between illusory and actual?

(04-27-2015, 06:05 PM)anagogy Wrote:

(04-27-2015, 04:53 AM)VanAlioSaldo Wrote: I should mention, I look at paradoxes as a means of a logical aid to go from a perspective of separateness to wholeness.  We start off believing ourselves separate in incarnation.  You may have the belief aspect of singleness.  I do not.  I do not literally see everything as one despite now believing I know it.  Thus I look for my 3D answer to bridge me to 6D understanding.

Consciousness has to be more than perspective.  One could argue consciousness IS beingness in itself but its hard to say.

Why do you think infinity can't spawn an illusion of a void?  Or do you?  Because I do.  I dont think it can spawn a compete lack of itself, not without trauma of some sort that I imagine is avoided if ever discovered and healing provided to any who might've stumbled upon that. Or maybe not.  It is hard to say.

I believe infinity can spawn an illusion of a void.  It just can't spawn an actual void from my perspective.

I agree that consciousness is beingness.  I define beingness as consciousness beyond subject/object relationships.  Consciousness still engaged in subject/object relationships I call "mind" which involves a perspective in relation to said objects.  

Thanks for sharing your perspectives.  

(04-28-2015, 12:09 AM)VanAlioSaldo Wrote:

(04-27-2015, 06:05 PM)anagogy Wrote:

(04-27-2015, 04:53 AM)VanAlioSaldo Wrote: I should mention, I look at paradoxes as a means of a logical aid to go from a perspective of separateness to wholeness.  We start off believing ourselves separate in incarnation.  You may have the belief aspect of singleness.  I do not.  I do not literally see everything as one despite now believing I know it.  Thus I look for my 3D answer to bridge me to 6D understanding.

Consciousness has to be more than perspective.  One could argue consciousness IS beingness in itself but its hard to say.

Why do you think infinity can't spawn an illusion of a void?  Or do you?  Because I do.  I dont think it can spawn a compete lack of itself, not without trauma of some sort that I imagine is avoided if ever discovered and healing provided to any who might've stumbled upon that. Or maybe not.  It is hard to say.

I believe infinity can spawn an illusion of a void.  It just can't spawn an actual void from my perspective.

I agree that consciousness is beingness.  I define beingness as consciousness beyond subject/object relationships.  Consciousness still engaged in subject/object relationships I call "mind" which involves a perspective in relation to said objects.  

Thanks for sharing your perspectives.  

Thank you too, I agree.

I think illusion and actual may not be too different from space/time and time/space.  But I honestly don't know, the illusions are pretty real to my 3D body lol

(04-28-2015, 12:37 AM)Minyatur Wrote:

(04-28-2015, 12:09 AM)VanAlioSaldo Wrote:

(04-27-2015, 06:05 PM)anagogy Wrote:

(04-27-2015, 04:53 AM)VanAlioSaldo Wrote: I should mention, I look at paradoxes as a means of a logical aid to go from a perspective of separateness to wholeness.  We start off believing ourselves separate in incarnation.  You may have the belief aspect of singleness.  I do not.  I do not literally see everything as one despite now believing I know it.  Thus I look for my 3D answer to bridge me to 6D understanding.

Consciousness has to be more than perspective.  One could argue consciousness IS beingness in itself but its hard to say.

Why do you think infinity can't spawn an illusion of a void?  Or do you?  Because I do.  I dont think it can spawn a compete lack of itself, not without trauma of some sort that I imagine is avoided if ever discovered and healing provided to any who might've stumbled upon that. Or maybe not.  It is hard to say.

I believe infinity can spawn an illusion of a void.  It just can't spawn an actual void from my perspective.

I agree that consciousness is beingness.  I define beingness as consciousness beyond subject/object relationships.  Consciousness still engaged in subject/object relationships I call "mind" which involves a perspective in relation to said objects.  

Thanks for sharing your perspectives.  

Thank you too, I agree.

I think illusion and actual may not be too different from space/time and time/space.  But I honestly don't know, the illusions are pretty real to my 3D body lol

Just as real as a wall is in a video game for your character. Yet it's all just ordered data.

(04-27-2015, 06:28 PM)anagogy Wrote:

(04-27-2015, 06:20 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: What is the difference between illusory and actual?

To me?

Illusions have beginnings and endings.  Real things do not.  

Tan.rar ' Wrote: So what, for you, is included under the umbrella of "real"?

(04-28-2015, 03:11 PM)anagogy Wrote:

(04-23-2015, 12:58 PM)Minyatur Wrote: So what, for you, is included under the umbrella of "real"?

Well, everything that can be experienced is some degree of real, from my perspective.  But some things are more real than others things because they are more permanent.

Unity would be the most real, since it is the most permanent.  All conscious experiences of unity (which is all that can be), is some measure of distorted/undistorted.

The undistorted unity doesn't disappear when somebody sees an illusion, the perception of it just becomes skewed, warped, or distorted.  Beingness remains flawlessly undistorted, regardless.  So it is a sliding scale of realness, with unity being the ultimate frame of reference.  The illusions are temporary ripples on the surface of the pond (surface of infinity), but the pond isn't going anywhere.  All illusions of relativity are relative because they exist only relation to the absolute.  The absolute is not dependent on the relative, which is why it isn't relative.

Do you have a different perspective on this matter?

Quote: Questioner: For general development [of the] reader of this book, could you state some of the practices or exercises to perform to produce an acceleration toward the Law of One?

Ra: I am Ra.

Exercise One. This is the most nearly centered and usable within your illusion complex. The moment contains love. That is the lesson/goal of this illusion or density. The exercise is to consciously seek that love in awareness and understanding distortions. The first attempt is the cornerstone. Upon this choosing rests the remainder of the life-experience of an entity. The second seeking of love within the moment begins the addition. The third seeking powers the second, the fourth powering or doubling the third. As with the previous type of empowerment, there will be some loss of power due to flaws within the seeking in the distortion of insincerity. However, the conscious statement of self to self of the desire to seek love is so central an act of will that, as before, the loss of power due to this friction is inconsequential.

Exercise Two. The universe is one being. When a mind/body/spirit complex views another mind/body/spirit complex, see the Creator. This is an helpful exercise.

Exercise Three. Gaze within a mirror. See the Creator.

Exercise Four. Gaze at the creation which lies about the mind/body/spirit complex of each entity. See the Creator.

(04-28-2015, 03:37 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: So real to illusion is a spectrum of degrees?

I am just trying to understand what you are thinking. I understand what you are saying in terms of conceptualization but I am confused over how exactly this is supposed to be organized. It seems to me that from what you are saying 'real' or 'illusion' is entirely a matter of perspective if the undistorted unity is always and ever present, it's just a matter of whether or not that is what you are perceiving. However, this becomes more difficult to apply to actual experience because in actual physical experience the 'undistorted unity' and the 'distorted unity' don't have clear or apparent divisions.

Basically, my issue with this train of thought is that it is entirely mental it seems. It looks great in theory and in the mind, but when I start to think about it in reality it doesn't make any sense to me. One of the reasons is because real/illusion appears to me to be a duality and so I don't understand how that can be fundamental to unity which does not have such a differentiation.

That also being said, in the idea of permanence there is impermanence and so again, a duality used to measure unity which doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me there is a great effort to separate "real" from "illusory" but I don't understand it because to me they are really no different. The way people apply these words they use them to instead try to categorize truth, in otherwords what is real is true, what is illusory is false. Yet, the attempt to categorize the truth of unity is, in itself, a flawed approach in my mind, since unity can't be categorized.

(04-28-2015, 03:37 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: Tl;Dr - The Absolute is relative only to itself, and so all relativity is a fundamental of unity.

(04-28-2015, 04:29 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: Thus, what is real or illusory is actually a matter entirely of apprehension. It's not whether something is Absolute or not, it is whether or not you are actually perceiving it for what it is. Real or illusory is a problem of perception and reason, not of reality, imo.

(04-28-2015, 04:16 PM)anagogy Wrote:

(04-28-2015, 03:37 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: So real to illusion is a spectrum of degrees?

I am just trying to understand what you are thinking. I understand what you are saying in terms of conceptualization but I am confused over how exactly this is supposed to be organized. It seems to me that from what you are saying 'real' or 'illusion' is entirely a matter of perspective if the undistorted unity is always and ever present, it's just a matter of whether or not that is what you are perceiving. However, this becomes more difficult to apply to actual experience because in actual physical experience the 'undistorted unity' and the 'distorted unity' don't have clear or apparent divisions.

Basically, my issue with this train of thought is that it is entirely mental it seems. It looks great in theory and in the mind, but when I start to think about it in reality it doesn't make any sense to me. One of the reasons is because real/illusion appears to me to be a duality and so I don't understand how that can be fundamental to unity which does not have such a differentiation.

That also being said, in the idea of permanence there is impermanence and so again, a duality used to measure unity which doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me there is a great effort to separate "real" from "illusory" but I don't understand it because to me they are really no different. The way people apply these words they use them to instead try to categorize truth, in otherwords what is real is true, what is illusory is false. Yet, the attempt to categorize the truth of unity is, in itself, a flawed approach in my mind, since unity can't be categorized.

The distinction between real and unreal is only important to beings inhabiting states of consciousness such as we, involving relativity.  As beings trying to grasp the light of undistorted unity because we don't consciously perceive it.  

So it is only relevant to beings seeking the light of truth.  Some beings aren't seeking this.  So it wouldn't be relevant to them, they are happy with the dream.

The absolute couldn't care less about such distinctions.  From its "perspective", there is no distortion.  Just undistorted unity.  Clear still pond.

The universe is nondual.  There is no duality.  But the One, in an attempt to apprehend the Two, or duality (Ra calls it the exploration of manyness), attempt to create an illusory one.  As it stands, unity can not become disunity.  The nondual cannot actually become dual.  All it can do is confuse itself.  It is like the snake looking at its own tail, and mentally deciding that the thing it is seeing is other than itself.  This is obviously not true, but it plays these mind games with itself, for the sake of the experience.  Why not?  Nothing but time, right, haha?

Rather than painstakingly trying to define a clear line between real and unreal, in practical experience it may be more organic to just think of it as waking up a little more with each experience, which is pretty much what we are all doing automatically.  We have experiences, we distill the love/light from them, and move onto the next experience.

The main thing of importance to understand, metaphysically, about distortion/undistortion in my opinion is that distortion involves a willful focus.  That is the kinetic manifestation of intelligent infinity.  When the focus is relaxed, the consciousness automatically withdraws back to the natural state of undistorted beingness.

If I failed to address your question, let me know.  Thanks.

(04-28-2015, 03:37 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: Tl;Dr - The Absolute is relative only to itself, and so all relativity is a fundamental of unity.

I agree that the relative is part of the absolute (I think).  I just don't think the absolute experiences the relative like we experience the relative.  Perhaps I'm horribly confusing the issue, but perception of separation, of any kind, is unique to us, seemingly inhabiting portions of reality, rather than the "whole shebang".  That is the difference from my perspective.  One is potentiated (willful focus which creates distortions) and one is unpotentiated (relaxed focus, dissolving back into pure unity).

Anyways, thanks for sharing your thoughts.  They are very interesting.

(04-28-2015, 04:36 PM)anagogy Wrote:

(04-28-2015, 04:29 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: Thus, what is real or illusory is actually a matter entirely of apprehension. It's not whether something is Absolute or not, it is whether or not you are actually perceiving it for what it is. Real or illusory is a problem of perception and reason, not of reality, imo.

To be honest, to me, this just sounds like another way of saying the same thing I said.  

Basically, unity is what is and accurate or inaccurate perception of that determines how undistorted/distorted your experience of that is.  Distortion = illusion.  Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means it doesn't exist the way it necessarily appears to.