(06-23-2011, 03:12 PM)Icaro Wrote: It seems that Ra tried to spoon-feed too much info, thus skipping the more illusory steps first.

(06-23-2011, 02:58 PM)unity100 Wrote:

(06-23-2011, 02:46 PM)111 Wrote: So you created the name and concept of "The Law of Responsibility" on your own through your personal studies and understandings??? It was never mentioned by Ra? Because Ra clearly speaks of certain Laws (I.e Law of confusion) But I have never heard of this term

i have not only mentioned, explained but also made multiple references with examples to law of responsibility, in two threads for a week and a half now.

it isnt too hard to just search for it.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?search_string=law+of+responsibility&search_type=phrase&ss=1&sc=1

(06-23-2011, 05:18 PM)Ankh Wrote: I would reeeally don't mind that

(06-21-2011, 09:21 AM)unity100 Wrote:

(06-20-2011, 10:37 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Seems like kind of the long way around the bush compared to "[t]hus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness."

nay. for the above sentence is lacking in meaning. the intelligent infinity is not 'one'. it is also many.

(06-24-2011, 03:43 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:

(06-21-2011, 09:21 AM)unity100 Wrote:

(06-20-2011, 10:37 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Seems like kind of the long way around the bush compared to "[t]hus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness."

nay. for the above sentence is lacking in meaning. the intelligent infinity is not 'one'. it is also many.

It's amazing how different our understandings of the material are. You see that sentence as meaningless; I see it as the core of Ra's teaching.

(06-24-2011, 03:43 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:

(06-21-2011, 09:21 AM)unity100 Wrote:

(06-20-2011, 10:37 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Seems like kind of the long way around the bush compared to "[t]hus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness."

nay. for the above sentence is lacking in meaning. the intelligent infinity is not 'one'. it is also many.

It's amazing how different our understandings of the material are. You see that sentence as meaningless; I see it as the core of Ra's teaching.

(06-24-2011, 03:51 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote:

(06-24-2011, 03:43 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:

(06-21-2011, 09:21 AM)unity100 Wrote:

(06-20-2011, 10:37 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Seems like kind of the long way around the bush compared to "[t]hus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness."

nay. for the above sentence is lacking in meaning. the intelligent infinity is not 'one'. it is also many.

It's amazing how different our understandings of the material are. You see that sentence as meaningless; I see it as the core of Ra's teaching.

I must say I agree with you here, not sure where unity is coming from. I feel like that sentence is basically the answer to "Why doesn't everything seem like One?"

(06-24-2011, 04:06 PM)111 Wrote: If intelligent infinity explores many-ness, it is only because it experiences these 'many' within itself. It is infinite. This word isn't even comprehendable Lol Oh and the quote of the day for all who care to hear, <French accent>" Now, Be gone you silly Englishmen or we shall taunt you a second time!"

---

WAIT!! Quote of the day should read <Ridiculous french accent> "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberrys!" Glad I caught this gross error in communication

(06-24-2011, 09:19 PM)unity100 Wrote: there is the experience of infinite manyness, because the infinity which is expressed as 'one' in the perception of a 6d entity, is not only 'one', but also 'many'.

something that is not already within infinity as an aspect, cannot be experienced. and there is nothing that is not in infinity, as an aspect.

therefore, infinity is also many.

(06-24-2011, 09:53 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:

(06-24-2011, 09:19 PM)unity100 Wrote: there is the experience of infinite manyness, because the infinity which is expressed as 'one' in the perception of a 6d entity, is not only 'one', but also 'many'.

something that is not already within infinity as an aspect, cannot be experienced. and there is nothing that is not in infinity, as an aspect.

therefore, infinity is also many.

I'm not sure if you're interpreting Ra here or correcting them. "Embracing and extending" perhaps? To my mind, what you're saying pretty directly contradicts Ra's statement here:

"That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity."

(06-24-2011, 11:45 PM)Raman Wrote: Infinity is one. Anything other than one is not infinity, but it is included in it. Including subsets of infinities, including nothingness.

(06-25-2011, 12:19 AM)unity100 Wrote:

(06-24-2011, 11:45 PM)Raman Wrote: Infinity is one. Anything other than one is not infinity, but it is included in it. Including subsets of infinities, including nothingness.

how can you attribute any specific adjective/quantifier to infinity whereas nothing is applicable ?

'one' is such a quantifier/adjective.

(06-25-2011, 01:03 AM)Raman Wrote:

(06-25-2011, 12:19 AM)unity100 Wrote:

(06-24-2011, 11:45 PM)Raman Wrote: Infinity is one. Anything other than one is not infinity, but it is included in it. Including subsets of infinities, including nothingness.

how can you attribute any specific adjective/quantifier to infinity whereas nothing is applicable ?

'one' is such a quantifier/adjective.

Infinity exists. It has to be only one. It just coincides with the concept "one"...it is not a regular definition. If infinity is not one it cannot exist. It becomes manyness with is included in one (as infinity). The alpha is the omega, Paradoxically it includes subsets of infinite infinities.

(06-24-2011, 10:29 PM)unity100 Wrote: i had had explicitly expressed in the past that, in this subject (infinity being 'one') i do not agree with what Ra says, and i have even expressed it as the unique viewpoint of the 6d reflecting as seeing everything from the window of the meaning of that ray - in case indigo and the unity.

it is no different from other densities tho - 4d entities see everything as love and so on.

(06-25-2011, 01:10 AM)Raman Wrote: Yes, paradoxical and unreachable except for the "One".

Nothingness included as well.

(06-25-2011, 06:06 AM)Ankh Wrote:

(06-24-2011, 10:29 PM)unity100 Wrote: i had had explicitly expressed in the past that, in this subject (infinity being 'one') i do not agree with what Ra says, and i have even expressed it as the unique viewpoint of the 6d reflecting as seeing everything from the window of the meaning of that ray - in case indigo and the unity.

it is no different from other densities tho - 4d entities see everything as love and so on.

We are 3D entities now and the experience of a 6D entity are not comprehendable for us, ie what a 6D entity sees, understands, thinks, and experience. I particular mean that they might experience this One-ness in some kind of way as we might experience something in our "reality". Take love for instance, which is comprehendable to a 3D entity. Everyone has felt love, and knows what it is. Then what we choose to do with it, is of course another story, but everybody has experienced it. And the same might be the case with this One-ness with respect to 6D beings, ie they are able to feel/experience One-ness as we are able to feel/experience love.

Further, the unique viewpoints of the densities beyond 6D does not have any relevance to us, since the highest density that Wanderers incarnating in 3D is the 6D. Thus, lessons are still to be learned to graduate from each density, to be able to finish this octave.

(06-25-2011, 08:20 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Good points, Ankh.

Unity, I disagree that oneness is merely one facet of infinity. I think it is its... struggling to come up with a word here. Fundament? Nature? Reality? As Ra said, unity is the identity of infinity.

Quote:47.6 Questioner: What I was actually asking was if 50% is required for graduation from third to fourth in the positive sense and 95% was required for graduation in the negative sense, does this have to more closely approach 100% for graduation in both cases for graduation from fourth to fifth density? Does an entity have to be 99% polarized for negative and maybe 80% polarized positive for graduation?

Ra: I am Ra. We perceive the query now.

To give this in your terms is misleading for there are, shall we say, visual aids or training aids available in fourth density which automatically aid the entity in polarization while cutting down extremely upon the quick effect of catalyst. Thus the density above yours must take up more space/time.

The percentage of service-to-others of positively oriented entities will harmoniously approach 98% in intention. The qualifications for fifth density, however, involve understanding. This then, becomes the primary qualification for graduation from fourth to fifth density. To achieve this graduation the entity must be able to understand the actions, the movements, and the dance. There is no percentage describable which measures this understanding. It is a measure of efficiency of perception. It may be measured by light. The ability to love, accept, and use a certain intensity of light thus creates the requirement for both positive and negative fourth to fifth harvesting.

(06-25-2011, 08:58 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: I think the word is Whole. Ra says it best, of course. And unity100 says how can it be whole if it is infinite. Well it can't, could it? But the idea is to try to perceive it. So then we see all that could ever be as a united beingness in one. At that's the point really, IMO. To see our connectedness.

(06-25-2011, 08:26 AM)unity100 Wrote: that's what makes infinity infinite - no adjective, identifier, description would suffice. if ANYthing sufficed, infinity would not be infinite anymore.

Quote:Ra: In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

May we enunciate this law in more detail?

Questioner: No.

(06-25-2011, 10:45 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:

(06-25-2011, 08:58 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: I think the word is Whole. Ra says it best, of course. And unity100 says how can it be whole if it is infinite. Well it can't, could it? But the idea is to try to perceive it. So then we see all that could ever be as a united beingness in one. At that's the point really, IMO. To see our connectedness.

Right, I think. It would seem that it can't be whole, and yet it is, and that's the mystery. Whole and infinite are two sides of the same coin.

Quote:"The one undifferentiated intelligent infinity, unpolarized, full and whole, is the macrocosm of the mystery-clad being."

(07-15-2011, 08:42 PM)unity100 Wrote: therein comes the 'mystery'. infinity is everything you can think of, yet, none of what you can think of can fully express its meaning.

this includes 'one'.