There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY

[βαθμιαίος]

OK. But do you agree that we are distorted?

Yes, of course.

Is illusion infinity?

Or is illusion a distortion?

What is illusion made of? Does it have substance? Or is an error in knowledge or belief?

I've avoided these questions because I'm uncomfortable answering such absolute questions. The short answer, of course, is "I don't know." But my opinion, for what it's worth, is that yes, illusion is a distortion. It's the distortion that the logoi offer to the Creator when they build what Ra calls illusory systems of natural laws in order for the Creator to know itself.

My apologies for implying that you used those terms. My interpretation (perhaps misinterpretation?) of your words was that illusion was somehow 'not real' ie. false ie. not really part of reality, maybe even separate from infinity. That is what we think of when we think of the word illusion, right? A magician's trick, showing us something not real?

Well, that's not far off from my position, but I have never referred to illusion in any pejorative way, I hope, or as separate from infinity. Indeed, my whole argument has been that we are not separate from infinity (in contrast to what I understood to be unity100's position that we are finite and separate from infinity).

I think of illusion as an exquisitely-wrought mask for infinity. It's the carefully-crafted gift that our logos is offering to the Creator so that it may know itself.

And yet, how can anything not be part of infinity? Illusion too is part of infinity.

Yes, of course, except that I might refer to it more as a mask for infinity.

How are these seeming paradoxes reconciled? How can we be infinity and yet distortions of infinity?

Ra said that the understandings they have to share begin and end in mystery. So I think it's OK if we don't resolve the paradox. But Ra also said that in their density the paradoxes are resolved and that some of us have wandered from their density, so I think it's worth the effort to attempt to resolve the paradox, remembering, of course, that we are not currently in a density of understanding. My attempt to resolve the paradox is to think of you, me, and everyone and everything else as, at the same time, the entirety of the One Creator (each of us individually, that is, not just collectively), but carefully disguised to seem to be separate, finite, and independent entities so that we may make choices, learn, grow, and come to know ourselves as our true self (the Creator).

I cannot speak for unity100, but that's not how I interpreted his words. I thought unity100 was saying that, while we can access infinity holographically within ourselves, we are still distortions of infinity and thus not infinity alone, without any qualifiers.

Well, I think that may be what he's saying now that you've joined the thread, but earlier, in response to my posting of Ra's holographic quote, he disagreed that we contained infinity.

In other words, when I read Ra's words saying You are infinity, I interpret that to mean that we can access infinity within. But it's infinity within a limit, which is only possible if we understand that we're holographic.

With respect, I think that's, to some extent, a misinterpretation. They're definitely saying that we can access infinity, but their plain words, to me at least, are also saying that we are infinity without limit. The limits that we perceive are a function of our limited viewpoint, which we have chosen. "1.5 ... 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."

As we evolve, eventually our grasp of infinity also evolves, and maybe instead of infinity in 2 directions it is infinity in multiple directions. But as long as we have an individual awareness as an entity, I don't see how it could be said that we are the SAME as infinity. I think Ra was trying to convey a very important point that infinity is contained in us and yes, we are the Creator. But we are still us, too. We are individuals as well. That fact isn't negated. Thus, the only reconciliation to this paradox that I can see, is that Ra meant we are infinity within the limit of our self.

I suggested another reconciliation to the paradox earlier in this post. My suggestion could certainly be wrong, but I do think it's consistent with everything Ra said.

The difference is that we're not undistorted. That is the clue.

As I understand it, we are simultaneously distorted and undistorted. Our basic reality is the undifferentiated unity, but we amuse ourselves by distorting that unity in various ways at this time.

Yes and no. From the Creator's viewpoint, yes, that's all there is. But from our viewpoint, currently, that's not all there is.

I maintain that we can adopt the Creator's viewpoint, if we're lucky and disciplined. As I understand it, that's what opening violet ray is -- experiencing the mystical unity that underpins all things.

Of course we are the One Infinite Creator. But we're also ourselves. We have identities. We contain the whole without being the whole. I invite you to watch Nassim Haramein's lectures, which explain this visually and mathematically.

Is there a particular lecture you'd recommend starting with?

That's right, because every piece contains a holographic pattern of the whole. Ra said this.

The key here is that we contain the pattern of infinity...the pattern of the Creator.

They said "any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity." Each portion contains infinity, not just the pattern of infinity.

We are all one, and one is all. There is no conflict between these concepts. We all contain one another and all of Creation. All is contained in us. But we are not at any given time aware of and expressing All.

I certainly agree that we are not, at most times, aware of and expressing All, but my understanding is that we can, at times, become aware of and express All. It won't be something that we can put into words when we come back from that state, but we can reach it. "34.3 The entity which reaches intelligent infinity most often will perceive this experience as one of unspeakable profundity."

So, as I understand it (or think I understand it), we are infinite within the limit of being entities. We aren't infinite as the One Infinite Creator is infinite...we are infinity within being ourselves, but we aren't infinity without any limits, which is what I think unity100 is referring to when he uses the term infinity alone. Only the One Infinite Creator is infinity without any limits.

Actually, unity100 distinguished the One Infinite Creator from infinity: "infinite creator is not infinity," "what you call as 'creator', even itself, is an entity/concept within the infinity. the reason it is able to experience, explore, is this. it is because it isnt infinite, by being intelligent, differentiated from infinity."

The limits aren't set. They can be eradicated, which is what we're doing as we evolve. I see the process of evolving as the process of removing limits, so that our awareness of infinity increases.

I completely agree.

This is what I think Ra was referring to. Ra was trying to encourage us to focus on the pattern of infinity within, because that is how we evolve. The infinity is there, if we look for it. But as long as we're having this conversation, that is a clue that some limits are still in place.

No doubt; the point I'm trying to make is that the limits are illusory and self-imposed. The most common process of removing the limits seems to be to evolve through the densities and then rejoin the Creator in seventh density. But Ra tells us that experiences of mystical unity are possible here and now, too.

I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm just trying to figure it out too and just offering my thoughts as I 'think' I understand it. But again I refer everyone to Nassim. I think his work should be required for any student of the Law of One!

I don't know what I'm talking about either , and I can't tell you how enjoyable it is to discuss this in a non-confrontational manner with a fellow bozo.

This is just my interpretation, I don't speak for Ra. I am Poffo.

Thanks, Poffo. It's fascinating and somewhat mind-boggling stuff to think about.