+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Strictly Law of One Material (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: How do you personally picture infinity? (/showthread.php?tid=12818)
Pages:
1
2
How do you personally picture infinity? - anagogy - 04-23-2016
Quote:13.5 Questioner: Thank you. Can you tell me of the earliest, first known thing in the creation?
Ra: I am Ra. The first known thing in the creation is infinity. The infinity is creation.
13.6 Questioner: From this infinity then must have come what we experience as creation. What was the next step or the next evolvement?
Ra: I am Ra. Infinity became aware. This was the next step.
My current perspective is that infinity simply equals *ALL* possibility or potentiality.
"The rhythms are clothed in mystery, for they are being itself."
The First Distortion
And it is my supposition that when Ra says "infinity became aware" that what they actually mean is "infinity became *self* aware".
In other words, I think that infinity was always aware, as I believe awareness is the primal reality upon all else is predicated. But I think that there was no differentiation, it was just raw beingness. There was nothing to compare that beingness to, so while there was infinite intelligence there, it did not "know it". "Knowing" requires comparison -- a kind of contrast to set it apart as a difference. Its kind of like: if you had never experienced pain, could you truly recognize pleasure? Wouldn't you say awareness of one is intrinsically linked to awareness of the other? Beingness could have been dwelling in the most unimaginable ecstasy or bliss but might not have been able to "recognize it" for what it was without the relativity provided by the finite illusion.
"There is no difference, potential or kinetic, in unity."
The point at which "infinity became self aware" was the same point that the first distortion of free will came into being. The infinite beingness that always was *willed* to "know itself". So desire must have grown or percolated within that infinity somehow (to be honest, I find this the most mysterious part of the whole process). Ra states that, "Unity, at this approximation of understanding, cannot be specified by any physics but only be activated or potentiated intelligent infinity due to the catalyst of free will. This may be difficult to accept." Sounds like Ra knew we would find that particular part quite mysterious indeed. But everything begins and ends in mystery after all.
So somehow this beingness chose to know itself. My supposition is that beingness is driven by a primal need to create (because it is creativity/imagination itself -- the nucleus or unification of all potential variety) which always necessitates an exploration of finity, where such creation may actually occur in a meaningful and recognizable way. It is like an artist that must express itself to feel complete. So as one octave comes to a close and everything withdraws back into the "unmanifest", a directly proportionate desire grows in this intelligent infinity to *re-manifest*. The apex point of this process is the 8th density point which is outside of time so naturally impossible to measure. This causes ripples in the undistorted unity leading to the manifestation of distortions, or illusions which are central to the process that is the primal heartbeat of the creator from one creation to the next.
The artist finishes one masterpiece and feels the itch to create another one as per their eternal nature.
The Second Distortion
This leads to the second distortion: the focusing of Love known as the "Logos". This is the focused, self aware manifestation of infinity -- the portion of infinity that KNOWS and is capable of knowing, rather than just BEING. So now we have an organized self. And as a self, it naturally has an "inner/outer" dichotomy. The "inner" to this self is the whole of time/space or subjective sphere and the "outer" of this self is the whole of space/time or objective sphere from my perspective.
The Third Distortion
The third distortion was the creation or projection of "love/light" and "light/love". In my opinion love/light is what time/space is constructed out of, and light/love is what space/time is created out of. Essentially, it is the same energy, just on opposite sides of the continuum.
--------------------------------------------------
How do you picture infinity? Feel free to share your thoughts in this thread.
--------------------------------------------------
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - Plenum - 04-23-2016
how do you understand the word 'intelligence' in this context?
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - anagogy - 04-23-2016
To me, "intelligence" means: of/or relating to consciousness, which might be looked at as the "capacity or potential for information synthesis". The concept of intelligence has no meaning without consciousness. So I see them as synonymous to a large degree. So infinty has always been intelligent from my perspective.
Awareness of awareness is what I would call "beingness", or raw intelligence, which is the state prior to the second distortion. Self awareness is a different animal, from my point of view in the sense that a "self" has more specific definition. The self involves a kind of structural relationship between perceiver and perceived. In reality there is no separation, but self allows for the illusion.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - Plenum - 04-23-2016
Thanks for the answer anagogy. That's solid.
Speaking more to the nature of the OP, I would say that each mind/body/spirit complex represents in micro, the macrocosm itself. So there is a whole universe in the self, which is pushed into beingness by it's own 'infinity'.
In terms of trying to grasp or handle the nature of intelligent infinity, my own recent work is still step-wise, rather than being able to contain it all at once. In that:
1) I tend to see 'infinity' as more an adjective. So there are infinite physical vehicles or infinite what-not.
2) I tend to approach intelligence as an adverb. So when something is intelligently done, it is drawing upon this universal resource.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - YinYang - 04-24-2016
Infinity is something I often contemplate, almost daily, and imagining it just leaves me with a sense of overwhelming amazement.
There's something in the Ra material I can't find now, have been looking for a few days, but Ra basically tells Don that any possibility he can imagine, exits elsewhere in the infinite creation. Does anyone know where it is?
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - Plenum - 04-24-2016
also - in your second and third steps, I would allocate the creation of the time/space and space/time domains as being a singular Step. That is, it would be the coalescing of the parameters of the Material Illusion. This would be the 'play of Light'.
15.21 Wrote:The first distortion, free will, finds focus. This is the second distortion known to you as Logos, the Creative Principle or Love. This intelligent energy thus creates a distortion known as Light.
The Logos chooses the particular parameters of it's own Architecturation.
27.17 Wrote:The nature of the vibratory patterns of your universe is dependent upon the configurations placed upon the original material or light by the focus or Love using Its intelligent energy to create a certain pattern of illusions or densities in order to satisfy Its own intelligent estimate of a method of knowing Itself.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - third-density-being - 04-24-2016
Dear YinYang,
I think You were referring to this question/answer:
Quote:16.44
Questioner: I understand that each density has seven sub-densities which
again have seven sub-densities and so on. This is expanding at a really large
rate as each is increased by powers of seven. Does this mean that in any
density level anything that you can think of is happening?
Ra: I am Ra. From your confusion we select the concept with which you
struggle, that being infinity/opportunity. You may consider any
possibility/probability complex as having an existence.
Dear Anagogy,
For me personally Infinity is something without neither the beginning nor end. Great symbol of infinity is a circle in my opinion -> O (capital O is best I can do with the keyboard
).In the context of “infinity”, I’m curious about Identity. I think it may be said the an Identity of the Creator is an Entire Creation, that exists simultaneously. For Us it may seems that Creation is “being created” or that some ‘things’ are progressing, but from the perspective of the Creator/Infinity, it All may be a brief thought: “Who am I”? Heh, I’ve just realized when One “knows”, One does not asks such question. Maybe simply an “act of knowing Self by the Infinite Creator” is what entire Creation / All of Us really is/are?
All I have Best in me for You
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - Minyatur - 04-24-2016
I had tried to perceive what it's like to leave the Octave and had an image of an infinitely fractalized mind becoming/remembering itself, coalescing into what all of infinite facets always were.
I see the raw awareness of beingness as the infinite intelligence of nothingness that enables the first distortion. And in turn the first distortion is the "heart beat" of everythingness and unlike the 2nd and 3rd, is a more transcending concept of infinity whereas the second distortion is a particular focus that is found by the first. The 2nd distortion is the original thought of which all of our experiences are an extended part of.
I think space/time time/space is enabled by the previous Octave and their duality of mover/moved. Stars/Planets/Moons/.../atoms are motors that distort the fabric of nothingness into space and time by creating movement within the Source. Polarity does the exact same thing by creating movement within the original thought of Love and will act as a foundation of the following Octave structure.
There is no ending to our seeking nor thrist of experience, yet all of it is but an infinite crystalized moment.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - anagogy - 04-24-2016
(04-24-2016, 05:43 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: also - in your second and third steps, I would allocate the creation of the time/space and space/time domains as being a singular Step. That is, it would be the coalescing of the parameters of the Material Illusion. This would be the 'play of Light'.
I would agree in a certain sense, but disagree in a slightly other sense. Ra did state that the first 3 distortions happened simultaneously, even though they are hierarchically numbered. "The steps, as you call them, are, at the point of question, simultaneous and infinite."
So from an "outside of time" perspective, I see their simultaneity. I also consider the whole of time/space to be the "universal mind" or the "mind of the Logos". From a hierarchical standpoint, I think time/space preceded space/time.
"The process by which space/time comes into continuum form is a function of the careful building, shall we say, of an entire or whole plan of vibratory rates, densities, and potentials. When this plan has coalesced in the thought complexes of Love, then the physical manifestations begin to appear; this first manifestation stage being awareness or consciousness."
The "coalescing in the thought complexes of Love" from my view, *IS* the time/space or "inner" structure of our universe being refined, calibrated, and created. It then appears as an inverted reflection as the "universal body" of the Logos, i.e. the entirety of space/time -- the "outer structure". Of course, inner and outer are terms that, in this context, have definition only relative to the Logoic self.
Spirit (raw intelligence) finds focus as Mind (the Self Reflecting/Knowing Principle), and then reflects itself in Matter (Body). And we are all microcosms of that universal Logos and its structure.
Edit: to clarify -- I think structured or "organized" space/time and time/space was part of the third distortion, though I believe there was a sort of "primal" space/time and time/space as soon as the 2nd distortion found focus as the Logos, simply because the moment a "self" forms there is an "inner/outer" aspect created reflexively by that egoic structure. This primal mind was then refined in the third distortion, and then its material reflection manifested as the physical universe (the natural inverted analog manifestation to time/space).
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - YinYang - 04-24-2016
(04-24-2016, 09:45 AM)third-density-being Wrote: Dear YinYang,
I think You were referring to this question/answer:
Quote:16.44
Questioner: I understand that each density has seven sub-densities which
again have seven sub-densities and so on. This is expanding at a really large
rate as each is increased by powers of seven. Does this mean that in any
density level anything that you can think of is happening?
Ra: I am Ra. From your confusion we select the concept with which you
struggle, that being infinity/opportunity. You may consider any
possibility/probability complex as having an existence.
That's the one! Thanks third-density-being!
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - anagogy - 04-24-2016
(04-24-2016, 03:54 AM)YinYang Wrote: Infinity is something I often contemplate, almost daily, and imagining it just leaves me with a sense of overwhelming amazement.
There's something in the Ra material I can't find now, have been looking for a few days, but Ra basically tells Don that any possibility he can imagine, exits elsewhere in the infinite creation.
It leaves me with amazement as well. Definitely one of my favorite things to think about.
Although while some people find the idea of an infinity that "always was" baffling, it made SO MUCH more sense to me then the idea that there was a "beginning" somewhere. Even as a child, I knew that there was something fundamentally distorted about the idea of "beginnings" and "endings". A lot of people linearly think that it was a: nothing, nothing, nothing, and magically and inexplicably, SOMETHING type of creation situation. That never made any real sense to me. But the idea that the base state of existence is infinity or all possibility makes perfect sense to me.
In terms of infinite possibilities like you brought up in your post, I see infinity as the entire collection of all possibilities of consciousness and the "creation" or "octave of densities" as the deliberate narrowing down or refinement on those possibilities till a specific and particular manifestation is coalesced. So in a sense, everything that could exist does exist, and always will, and what creation actually entails is simply the process of temporarily "forgetting" all the stuff we didn't want to be part of this current manifestation or creation. We put on perceptual blinders to all the other aspects of everythingness, and an octave of densities, with specific attributes, then appears to exist. All the other possibilities are still there, sitting in infinity, forever and always, but we have simply narrowed our focus down to the few that suits our collective will at this current focusing point of our being.
"The Creator does not properly create as much as It experiences Itself."
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - Illamasqua - 04-24-2016
(04-23-2016, 09:01 PM)anagogy Wrote: How do you picture infinity?
First of all, you wouldn't see it. This is perhaps the most glaring obstacle most entities encounter when attempting to ascertain the nature of the One Infinite Creator (as vision/visuals—including time/space imagination—necessitate the 3rd distortion: Light). If one perceives the Creator in some form, shape or color, then they are only perceiving the illusion (of the Creator, granted!). This is understandable, however, as the illusion is, by its very nature, no less than very, very beautiful. The Light will therefore captivate the eyes/mind of the observer.
That said, Infinity, Intelligent Infinity, or the One Infinite Creator is that which is "prior" to any distortion, completely beyond any conceptualization and therefore totally uncognizable* (which is why Creation—the Illusion of Limits—will continue indefinitely: because Infinity can never be truly "known," leaving the Creator infinitely free to explore Itself "forever").
Infinity is the absolute potential "before" any Creation occurs. It is the "un-created" Creator, totally "at rest," perfectly "still" without any movement or change whatsoever—the very mystery of Beingness/Existence itself.
It just is. Period. No additions, subtractions, divisions or multiplications.
This potential (Latin for power) refers to the ability or capacity to act or do work (this work, of course, being that rotational/vortexian/focal/centrifugal force known as Love). Due to Infinity's own, well, infinitude, this power or potential can be no less than equally infinite (limitless/unrestricted), which is why the 1st distortion is freedom of will of awareness: the means by which the Creator "chooses" to focalize or con-centrate into one particular kinetic focus of activity/creativity or vortex of ideation (Love) as a means of self-exploration through the Illusion of Limits (the holographic, kaleidoscopic "Light-Show" created by/from/out of Love). Hence, the plurality of Loves or "Logoi" occurring both simultaneously, concurrently and parallel to each other, and the infinite number of Creations that are radiated from and absorbed back into each Love in the blink of an eye or heartbeat only to go to "sleep" or coalesce/dissolve once again into infinite potential.
It is especially interesting to note that Infinity cannot create Infinity: it can only create illusions of limitations of that Infinity—but it can (and therefore will) create such limitations infinitely.
As to the question of whether to call Infinity "intelligent," "conscious" or "aware is," from my own experiential perception/distortion, totally irrelevant: Infinity is intelligence itself and intelligence is infinite, always been/existed and never ceasing. The problem is, as always, words. Being a "simplicisist" at heart—and aware of the *extremely* great potential for semantic misunderstandings/disagreements courtesy of this Tower of Babble—I merely endeavour to to simplify.
*Yes, the Creator will know Itself. However, what it will know that Its own infinity/potential is truly unknowable. This is the greatest and most ultimate realization, in fact, as it is what propels the Creator to create and create and create indefinitely: the ever-lasting desire to know Itself.
(04-24-2016, 03:54 AM)YinYang Wrote: Infinity is something I often contemplate, almost daily, and imagining it just leaves me with a sense of overwhelming amazement.
Ditto
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - Stranger - 04-24-2016
I imagine that "all possibilities" is not necessarily accurate. "All interesting possibilities" perhaps? The Creator being a conscious Being rather than a random-sequence-generating machine, I don't see the value to creating "a universe with one photon in it" followed by "a universe with two photons in it" and then every possible permutation of this.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - anagogy - 04-24-2016
(04-24-2016, 03:47 PM)Illamasqua Wrote: As to the question of whether to call Infinity "intelligent," "conscious" or "aware is," from my own experiential perception/distortion, totally irrelevant: Infinity is intelligence itself and intelligence is infinite, always been/existed and never ceasing. The problem is, as always, words. Being a "simplicisist" at heart—and aware of the *extremely* great potential for semantic misunderstandings/disagreements courtesy of this Tower of Babble—I merely endeavour to to simplify.
*Yes, the Creator will know Itself. However, what it will know that Its own infinity/potential is truly unknowable. This is the greatest and most ultimate realization, in fact, as it is what propels the Creator to create and create and create indefinitely: the ever-lasting desire to know Itself.
I think Ra probably said it best when they stated in response to one of Don's interpretation of Ra's cosmology, "This concept is incorrect as is any concept of the one intelligent infinity." All of our thoughts about infinity can only ever by symbols, and cannot accurately capture the true depth and scope of it. But it's fun to try!
I think the desire to "know itself" is essentially the intangible/unmanifest's desire to completely manifest itself tangibly or specifically but its inability to completely do so. Basically the ineffable and undefinable infinite can never be completely defined and finite. The unquantifiable, can never quantify itself. Or perhaps we could alternatively say it takes an infinite/eternal amount of "time" for the infinite to express itself. And this creative dilemma is the impetus for endless investiture in "finite differentiation as we know it".
(04-24-2016, 03:48 PM)Stranger Wrote: I imagine that "all possibilities" is not necessarily accurate. "All interesting possibilities" perhaps? The Creator being a conscious Being rather than a random-sequence-generating machine, I don't see the value to creating "a universe with one photon in it" followed by "a universe with two photons in it" and then every possible permutation of this.
Well, to my way of thinking the possibilities exist, always, in infinity but NOT as we think of them differentially in separation. That is the crux. The architectural creation that is an octave is a "deliberate zeroing in" on certain possibilities (out of the infinite potential), which appears as a separate "thing unto itself" for the duration of the focus. But as we know, separation is an illusion.
So in pure unity, I would surmise every possibility is balanced out by every other possibility, resulting in pure undistorted stillness -- the pure balance of all potential.
But in terms of the actual illusory act of creation, even it has a great deal of randomness to it according to Ra, "The energy moves from the intelligent infinity due first to the outpouring of randomized creative force, this then creating patterns which in holographic style appear as the entire creation no matter which direction or energy is explored. These patterns of energy begin then to regularize their own local, shall we say, rhythms and fields of energy, thus creating dimensions and universes."
The randomness is due to the fact, in my opinion, that in the beginning, the desire is "too infinitely broad" and thus, while there is a cosmically large and powerful desire to manifest in a finite manner, the specifics of that desire have not been culled out of the Logoic focus yet. But eventually, as Ra says, they "regularize" and become organized.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - Nicholas - 04-24-2016
The colour pink is my personal picture. A type of pink that none of us can witness in our shared reality. It glistens in a way that is indescribable.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - Aion - 04-25-2016
Quote:15.9 Questioner: Can you tell me a little bit about the definition of the word “balancing” as we are using it?
Ra: I am Ra. Picture, if you will, the One Infinite. You have no picture. Thus, the process begins. Love, creating light, becoming love/light, streams into the planetary sphere according to the electromagnetic web of points or nexi of entrance. These streamings are then available to the individual who, like the planet, is a web of electromagnetic energy fields with points or nexi of entrance.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - Steppingfeet - 04-27-2016
(04-23-2016, 09:01 PM)anagogy Wrote: How do you picture infinity?
In an attempt to answer, or at least reply to, the question, I would have to discuss, as did Illamasqua, the un-picturability of infinity.
To know something, to understand something, indeed, to see something requires an other, a dualism, a subject and object.
Infinity cannot be made into an object. It cannot see itself because it is that which is doing the seeing, much as the eyeball is seeing the world around it but cannot see itself.
But more deeply, it is the "one without a second." How can some thing with no beginning, no end, no boundaries, no limitations, no center, no perimeter, no space, no time, no qualities, no content (or conversely, and as meaningless, ALL qualities, all content, all boundaries, all limitations, all space, all time, etc.) see itself? It needs the concept of the "other."
Thus the necessity of the illusion of subject and object: a great experiment to investigate and see itself, though to what ultimate end, and to what ultimate gain, absolutely un-does my mind.
As does attempting to contemplate a total unity where subject and object collapse. I believe firmly that it is literally impossible for the mind complex to see beyond subject and object. Our minds are hardwired to perceive and shape reality in those terms. Indeed we are the product of that subject/object split.
I think only through the mysterious process of enlightenment/awakening due we "understand" unity, and that understanding is not whatsoever a property or function of the mind, though it does seem to dissolve much of the mind complex activity.
Such contemplation, however, needs doing! The more time we can turn our attention to the Creator, the more that we correspondingly and proportionally become that which we seek, that which we always have been all along.
At any rate, illuminating OP, anagogy. : )
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - anagogy - 04-27-2016
(04-27-2016, 12:21 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: As does attempting to contemplate a total unity where subject and object collapse. I believe firmly that it is literally impossible for the mind complex to see beyond subject and object. Our minds are hardwired to perceive and shape reality in those terms. Indeed we are the product of that subject/object split.
I think only through the mysterious process of enlightenment/awakening due we "understand" unity, and that understanding is not whatsoever a property or function of the mind, though it does seem to dissolve much of the mind complex activity.
Such contemplation, however, needs doing! The more time we can turn our attention to the Creator, the more that we correspondingly and proportionally become that which we seek, that which we always have been all along.
Good points, GLB. I agree on all fronts.
I don't think mind can see beyond the subject/object nexus because it literally *IS* that split. Subject is mind (the "who" principle), object (the "where/what" principle) is body/matter (or really anything we have mentally labeled as an object outside of our ego). And spirit is the relationship between these illusory subdivisions and undistorted unity.
My current model for the triage of mind/body/spirit is that "spirit" (undistorted pure awareness) is looking in the mirror of "mind" (self reflecting inner projected consciousness) and seeing the reflection of "matter" (outer projected consciousness).
Mind is essentially the ego structure (a particular perspective) and essentially the inversion point between spirit and matter. Basically the spirit produces an artificial division by choosing, "willing", or attempting to identify its infinite substance as an object. This reflexively causes dissociation to occur resulting in the formation of MIND or EGO. It is almost like the act of attempting to quantify the unquantifiable (the attempt to "know") forces a certain amount of beingness (or attention/focus) into a "lower energy shell" of infinity, where illusory perceptions may occur. Sort of like how the two poles of a magnet are just one magnet, but if you identified with just one of the poles and looked at the other pole, you might see it as "other" than your "self". Or another analogy: a snake looking at its own tail and mentally concluding that it is a separate object (and perhaps even trying to eat it because of its faulty assumption -- which is akin to all us monkeys trying to kill each other on planet earth).
In any ego structure, there is an inner and outer aspect. If you assume an "in here" you reflexively also assume an "out there". This becomes, in my opinion, primal time/space (realm of love/light) and primal space/time (realm of light/love).
So the first step, from my point of view in terms of seeing "beyond" the subject/object illusion is to polish the mirror of self so that it becomes a pristine and accurate reflector of spirit. Afterall, the reflection in the mirror can only be as accurate as the mirror is undistorted, so the more distorted our mind complex is, the more distorted the material reflection will be. This appears to be what many "sages" advocate, based on my research.
I think this "polishing" is akin to the process of polarization. Eventually the reflection becomes so pure that one can't help but consciously recognize the ultimate congruency of mind, spirit, and matter on a visceral and fundamental level. This naturally collapses the ego structure and frees the consciousness from its artificial subdivision. This process can take billions of years, or a single lifetime. I think there are no hard and fast rules. We have all eternity.
And I think this is what is termed "enlightenment".
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - third-density-being - 04-27-2016
Dear Illamasqua,
You’ve made many excellent points, however below quote of You is utmost daring:
(04-24-2016, 03:47 PM)Illamasqua Wrote: (...)
*Yes, the Creator will know Itself. However, what it will know that Its own infinity/potential is truly unknowable. This is the greatest and most ultimate realization, in fact, as it is what propels the Creator to create and create and create indefinitely: the ever-lasting desire to know Itself.
(...)
Have I understood it correctly? : Creator, being Infinity, realize that He/She/It/They are unable to know Self in His/Her/Its/Their entirety? And that being a cause for Creator to Create and invest Self/Infinity into “never-ending/infinite many-ness”?
I’m asking about that, because I’m also exploring the Idea of the “limitation” of the Creator. I’ve read phrases like “growing Infinity” or that something is “enriching Infinity” (those were Words of Seth) and such Ideas are blowing my mind. I’m guessing that paradoxes created by such expression are outcomes of Our language / ways of communication – words/labels/symbols.
But than again – Our Logos/Logoi is “recent experiment” with “heavy Veiling”, like no other “before” and it enriches the Creator greatly (those were words of Q’uo).
In the light of such statements I think it is not proper to conceptualize Creator/Infinite as an “absolute”, but rather as “Eternal/Infinite Becoming”. Especially, that when “something/some-One” is “perfect”/”an absolute” – there’s no more “space/place" for growth, and this alone would be a limitation (!).
Dear Anagogy,
(04-27-2016, 01:37 PM)anagogy Wrote: (...)
Mind is essentially the ego structure (a particular perspective) and essentially the inversion point between spirit and matter.
(...)
I agree with what You wrote. I only would like to add a thought regarding the ego-construct. Since I’m trying to integrate teachings/learnings of Ra and Seth, I will use Words of the latter one: Ego is a portion of the Soul which focus is directed outwards. Ego is that portion of the Whole Self/Soul that deals directly with the material reality and is supported / it’s Beingness lies within the Whole Self / Soul.
Above is not a direct quote, as I don’t want to quote Seth on this sub-forum, but it is an essence of what was said. Moreover, ego undergoes cycles of “death & rebirth” on daily basis – literally. Our today’s ego is not the same as it was yesterday. It merge and emerge into/from Whole Self every time it go to rest (dreaming state) – I would term/label it as “ego-intervals” that are bringing “ego-metamorphosis” / “ego-rebirths”.
It’s almost like We – ego-We - were merging with Infinity and emerging from It in regular cycles.
All I have Best in me for You
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - anagogy - 04-27-2016
(04-27-2016, 02:43 PM)third-density-being Wrote: I agree with what You wrote. I only would like to add a thought regarding the ego-construct. Since I’m trying to integrate teachings/learnings of Ra and Seth, I will use Words of the latter one: Ego is a portion of the Soul which focus is directed outwards. Ego is that portion of the Whole Self/Soul that deals directly with the material reality and is supported / it’s Beingness lies within the Whole Self / Soul.
Above is not a direct quote, as I don’t want to quote Seth on this sub-forum, but it is an essence of what was said. Moreover, ego undergoes cycles of “death & rebirth” on daily basis – literally. Our today’s ego is not the same as it was yesterday. It merge and emerge into/from Whole Self every time it go to rest (dreaming state) – I would term/label it as “ego-intervals” that are bringing “ego-metamorphosis” / “ego-rebirths”.
I can more or less agree with the way you see it thirddensitybeing. There are many nuances we could enumerate if we wanted to go into nitty gritty detail. If we were relating it to Seth's interpretation we would also have to include the "inner ego" in addition to the "outer ego" which is a concept Seth went into some detail about. I would consider the inner ego to more or less be the subconscious mind (time/space/potentiator mind) and the "outer ego" to be the conscious mind (space/time mind/matrix). Beyond that, we could say we have egos within egos, layers within layers, much like an onion. Some of them being more permanent than others. Perhaps we have a more stable "between lives" ego or personality that exists after we shed our earthly outer persona. And as you said, various aspects we shed on a daily/nightly basis.
When I use the word "ego" I generally refer to a self, or circumscribed boundary of consciousness/perception. Every ego is an "eye" for the creator to look through, and see the world from a certain specific vantage point. Essentially a limitation or filter for consciousness. We might even think of it a "vehicle" for consciousness. It derives its existence from consciousness, rather than consciousness deriving its existence from the self. Occasionally I use the world "Self" to refer to unbounded consciousness (intelligent infinity which is our true self) but I tend to avoid it as I feel it smacks of boundaries where there actually are none.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - AnthroHeart - 04-27-2016
So is there zero diversity in intelligent infinity?
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - Minyatur - 04-27-2016
What seeks while knowing all things that are sought.
What has it's own by-product as the source of itself.
What experiences separation of it's raw beingness.
What creates with nothing what always was.
What experiences unmoving movement.
What experiences unchanging change.
What always was in an eternal never.
What allows it's beingness by being.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - Minyatur - 04-27-2016
Infinity is in some way a paradox that is accepted to be, referred to as mystery.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - anagogy - 04-27-2016
(04-27-2016, 05:29 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: So is there zero diversity in intelligent infinity?
You are experiencing the diversity of intelligent infinity right now. The mind/body's purpose and function is for the fine examination of the various infinite aspects of the whole. The finite perspective provides a window for the infinite to see itself from a particular and unique perspective. The function of the spirit is to point out the interconnecting relationship between the parts and the cosmic whole. When you look through the eyes of mind, there are an infinity of diverse parts, when you look through the eyes of spirit, there is only unity. So there is both infinite diversity and infinite uniformity depending on where you focus your consciousness.
Infinity isn't missing anything. It is filled to brim with all potential states of being/consciousness.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - isis - 04-28-2016
I doubt anything has a beginning or ending, bc I think everything is the infinite creator - every event & everything. I think everything makes up the creator's (powerful beyond comprehension) identity - not just entities or souls or w/e.
So, to me, infinity is w/e is. & what is? Everything, imo - not just what I'm currently able to perceive. I think everything that can exist does exist, & always has existed, & always will exist - somewhere, somehow.
I doubt there's anything to create, I doubt there ever was anything to create, & I doubt there ever will be anything to create. In other words, I think everything that's (seemingly) created has always been, always is, & always will be.
How many times have I experienced x moment in time? Possibly an infinite amount of times, imo. Maybe to know oneself can be to just experience oneself & not necessarily to gain any knowledge? Bc I see the creator as something that knows all it can ever know.
More or less, I guess I picture infinity as everything...but I can picture it multiple ways. Abstractly, I can (somehow) see it as the color black. I can picture it by just feeling it - or at least I think I can feel it sometimes.
Primarily, though, I think I picture infinity by simply imagining x having no beginning or ending. & picturing it this way rarely fails to leave my mind feeling boggled & overwhelmed for a bit.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - Aion - 04-28-2016
What is without image or form?
I admit I do not picture or 'see' infinity. I experience visuals when I THINK about infinity, but I don't think they actually represent infinity as an image but is more processing information. I do believe you can FEEL infinity though. I do feel infinity.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - AnthroHeart - 04-28-2016
Infinity also includes those moments of loss of time, where we are unconscious for a moment and then suddenly back in the room wondering where we went.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - Steppingfeet - 05-04-2016
(04-27-2016, 01:37 PM)anagogy Wrote: So the first step, from my point of view in terms of seeing "beyond" the subject/object illusion is to polish the mirror of self so that it becomes a pristine and accurate reflector of spirit. Afterall, the reflection in the mirror can only be as accurate as the mirror is undistorted, so the more distorted our mind complex is, the more distorted the material reflection will be. This appears to be what many "sages" advocate, based on my research.
I think this "polishing" is akin to the process of polarization. Eventually the reflection becomes so pure that one can't help but consciously recognize the ultimate congruency of mind, spirit, and matter on a visceral and fundamental level. This naturally collapses the ego structure and frees the consciousness from its artificial subdivision. This process can take billions of years, or a single lifetime. I think there are no hard and fast rules. We have all eternity.
And I think this is what is termed "enlightenment".
I agree wholeheartedly with the basic gist of "polishing" the mirror. I have been working with that assumption for some time as well.
I however prefer the slightly differently nuanced version of seeing the mirror consisting of water, and seeing it becoming pristine, and, (to use your analogy) "polished," through stillness.
When the water (consciousness, or mind/body) is turbulent, the waves reflect choppy fragments of the unified whole. We get variously distorted, fragmented pictures of who we really are.
When the waves subside (through self-knowing, self-accepting, balancing, polarizing, and eventually the disciplined indigo work of stillness), then the true self is seen in reflection on the water.
What is seen in the reflection? What is seen is (what we might call, but is probably ultimately a misnomer) emptiness. The placid, still water reflects an image of no content, not quality, no boundaries. An image of vast openness is reflected back to us. And we realize/see for the first time that we are that.
This is liberation, insofar as I understand it. We realize that we are not the small self and all its confining experiences. We are, and always have been, freedom itself. Vast, boundless, choiceless awareness. The is-ness of the I am. The I Am of the isness. Mystery-clad beingness.
But while the waves are turbulent and in motion (blocked, unactivated, and imablanced chakras), we don't see the boundless witnessing awareness that we are. We become identified/attached to/confined by the waves of form.
Ultimately emptiness and form are non-dual. But the path of realization involves, so far as I am aware, liberation into emptiness first.
Either way, it is only through the door of stillness that we recognize what we always have been, and already are, right now.
I have a quote from Ramana Maharshi written on a sticky note on my computer that says:
"All that is required to realize the self is to be still."
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - I am Shayne - 05-04-2016
Does anyone else feel a sense of relaxed bliss when thinking of/reading/mentally immersing yourself in these minimally-distorted concepts? When you see that all things are of the same entity/process.
It is one of my favorite activities.
RE: How do you personally picture infinity? - Night Owl - 05-04-2016
If I would describe how infinity feels it'd be something like a wide empty void with serene beingness in solitude that grows.
But when attempting to conceptualize infinity you can only come to face the final duality. That is that the universe is either a paradox that you accept that you cannot solve with your current tools and abilities or that there is no paradoxes possible and that all that creates paradoxes are distortions and that the amount of beingness required to solve this paradox is infinite. Infinite in growth and infinite in potential. This paradox either doesn't exist or grows infinitly with the infinitely expanding universe.
One thing remains certain, our octave is a really vivid one because of the original thought that is love. Love is what allows growth and progress toward what is desired and is in some way only an extention of freewill. Freewill can only be given in love. So in that sense love could be seen as a qualitative adjective and extention of freewill which is also a qualitative adjective of self awareness. That would be why they are simultaneous. There cannot be a duality of seperation self/other self without liberty of potential. As such it is really adequate of Ra to mention how the human race seems obssessed with numbers while truly there is nothing to count. Everything is in quality not quantity. So our octave could be interpreted as a machine whose engine is an explorator of desires and uses qualitation as fuel. The result is a material that is ever expanding in qualitation(AKA love/wisdom) and depends on illusionary duality to be maintained or sustained.
This quote from Illamasqua found me particularly perplexed though: '' the Illusion of Limits—will continue indefinitely: because Infinity can never be truly "known," leaving the Creator infinitely free to explore Itself "forever" ''
It brought 2 big set of questions in my mind.
1-Are there really limitations to the creator? Freewill and limitations seems to be a paradoxal duality. Is limitation really what allows the creator to explore forever? Then how is that free? Is the focus on the freewill or on building limits that allows it? If freewill can only exist within limitations than there must be a tremendous amount of work and energy given into that particular step. Like programming a game.
It seems obvious though that if the creator was to mannifest right before our eyes and interact with us then the illusion which we experience could not continue further because it would definitely collapse. Even though that's basically impossible it leaves me to wonder which one is free? The infinite or the individualized? Are we free because infinity is not? Or are we not free because infinity is? I think that is why freewill is a distortion. It still is a biased representation or concept based on duality. It is like something that exist while not existing. Maybe it is malleable enough so that if you focus on freewill it exist as the source of your experience and if you don't then you remain complete programmation.
If you are programmation then you are limited to set parameters but you still play your role in the freewill of the rest of the universe. It seems to be a fluid concept and not a rigid parameter. Maybe it is a variable and not a constant that can be injected into the individual parameters.
2- Does our current configuration requires to be that way to exist or is it simply desired because of the amount of qualitative it can create as opposed to a different configuration? And what does an infinite amount of qualitative experience allows to create as a big picture? If you want to picture infinity, that picture would be as close as you can get. And why does the logos emphasis on qualitative so much? Yes it creates more vivid beingness but by which standards is vivid better than anything else? Did the creator became bored with none-vivid experience?