Creator-Creation Interaction

[loostudent]

What is the nature of this interaction?

Is the Creator just providing the illusion, natural laws, potentials and ground of existence and expirience or is it also interfering with expiriential nexus and engaged in cultivating the Creation?

Is Creator's interaction direct or is it limited to intermidiaries (co-Creators)?

Is it self-initiated or is it depending on the initative of self-conscious created beings?

[ada]

The nature is love.

Everything else is one.

1.7 ▶ Questioner: [The question was lost because the questioner was sitting too far from the tape recorder to be recorded.]

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

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.

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.

Sorry I can't give you a more proper answer.  

[Sacred Fool]

It would seem to moi that to explore the questions posed in the OP, one would first have to define Creator and then define self.

Is the Creator a thing that can take you to lunch and talk over your spiritual career plans?  Does it have a sense of self solid enough to support an agenda or goals of any sort?

Personally, since you asked, I doubt any of that is true.  I doubt the Creator is a thing with any kind of selfhood.

What is it then, some sort of robot?  I doubt that, too.  

I know the term "The Creator" sounds like a functionary's office or title, but I think that may be misleading.  I picture the Creator as more elemental than the elements, as it were, more fundamental than existence.  It is implicit in all that has form and its nature, in the realm of form, is to gather bits together to form structure and narrative.

And what are you?  You are a gathering of a few bits to form a slight structure and a brief narrative.  But inside of that is the implicit Creator thing that is.......well....... you can take it from here............


They don't call it a mystery for nuthin'.

[AnthroHeart]

I've heard that Awareness is more fundamental than existence.
So maybe Creator is pure awareness.

But I've also heard mention of the Absolute, which is beyond experiencing.

[loostudent]

It would seem to moi that to explore the questions posed in the OP, one would first have to define Creator and then define self.

Is the Creator a thing that can take you to lunch and talk over your spiritual career plans?  Does it have a sense of self solid enough to support an agenda or goals of any sort?

"I leave you in the love and the light of the one Infinite Intelligence which is the Creator."

[breakingties]

What is the nature of this interaction?

Is the Creator just providing the illusion, natural laws, potentials and ground of existence and expirience or is it also interfering with expiriential nexus and engaged in cultivating the Creation?

Is Creator's interaction direct or is it limited to intermidiaries (co-Creators)?

Is it self-initiated or is it depending on the initative of self-conscious created beings?

The way i see it: All is One-so there are no co-Creators, just One Creator hidden behind the illusion of self. The Creation=The Creator, so you move and everyone moves with you, in a perfect coordinated way, driven by the force of love. I see it something like in the matrix scene where he realizes his full powers and he sees green and black code, but instead of seeing this, seeing the love behind, that unites everything. The gravity of love.

[Bring4th_Austin]

It would seem to moi that to explore the questions posed in the OP, one would first have to define Creator and then define self.

Is the Creator a thing that can take you to lunch and talk over your spiritual career plans?  Does it have a sense of self solid enough to support an agenda or goals of any sort?

Personally, since you asked, I doubt any of that is true.  I doubt the Creator is a thing with any kind of selfhood.

What is it then, some sort of robot?  I doubt that, too.  

I know the term "The Creator" sounds like a functionary's office or title, but I think that may be misleading.  I picture the Creator as more elemental than the elements, as it were, more fundamental than existence.  It is implicit in all that has form and its nature, in the realm of form, is to gather bits together to form structure and narrative.

And what are you?  You are a gathering of a few bits to form a slight structure and a brief narrative.  But inside of that is the implicit Creator thing that is.......well....... you can take it from here............


They don't call it a mystery for nuthin'.

I like this description of the Creator. I also tend to see the common apprehension of the Creator as an "entity" to be misapplied, but understandable. Ra talks about an intelligence to infinity, and it's easy to relate that intelligence to what we consider intelligence in ourselves. But I think our conceptualization of "intelligence" relies on those exciting things offered by the illusion - temporal experience, patterns and shadows, false (but useful) conceptualizations of self. If we were to strip the concept of intelligence of these things, what would it be then?

If the Creator is so primal that any form attributed to it must be illusory, then anything that happens to us that we might attribute to the Creator would also be illusory. But is there a dividing line between illusion and Creator? What is the distinction between "the Creator" and its "intermediaries / co-Creators"? Are some things more or less the Creator? I don't think the distinction is very clear at all.

I have no doubt miraculous things can and do happen, I do believe that a "communication" can happen with the Creator, and I don't think that perceiving a selfhood or personality to the Creator is a wayward notion. But I see these things as "self-contained" within the illusion - an illusion which isn't necessarily separate from the Creator, and so attribution could be flexible.

[AnthroHeart]

i think the distinction between Creator and Creation is very clear.
If we can imagine it, it's not Creator.
There is no concept that would describe Creator.

[loostudent]

Creator is the absolute Mystery indeed but in this thread I'm not interested in this transcendence. I'm thinkng of imanence - the manifested side. I'm intersted in Creator's help and engagement in the Creation (illusion) - intervention in natural course of things without infringement upon free will.

Let's take a look at one example. Recently a lightning struck a pregnant woman. After some days or weeks the woman and the child both died. Some questions arise: is there no one who could have prevented this? How could life here be so cruel and unjust? Am I missing something? "The window phenomenon"?

[AnthroHeart]

I think the Qabalah is all about imanence. I don't know much, but it's ultimate goal is to transcend the ego and union with God.
The middle pillar is supposed to be the quickest way.