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

[Monica]

With respect, I think you're arguing with your Christian Science practitioner acquaintance more than with me. I stated that the illusion is an exquisitely wrought gift that the logoi have offered to the Creator. I am in no way saying it's invalid or non-existent. I am saying that it's a mask for infinity.

It's difficult enough to communicate clearly, and even more difficult to communicate via the written word, and then we have compounding this difficulty, the complexity of our subject.

I apologize for any misunderstanding! To clarify, what I found similar in your arguments was not so much a lack of validity, but a lack of inclusion. Though I do appreciate your clarification!

When I hear the words: illusion is a mask for infinity that seems to me to be suggesting that it is somehow not part of infinity. This is how I perceived those words, though I realize now that's not what you meant.

I was trying to distinguish the differentiated (distortion) from the undifferentiated. It just seems to me that we are running in circles, continuing to try to define that which cannot be defined.

Similary, as I understand it, illusion is a technical term that Ra uses to refer to any creation, whether it be galaxy, star, solar system, planet, third-density reality, etc. They're all forms that have been created to allow infinity to experience limits. It doesn't denigrate those forms to point out that they were created for infinity to experience itself.

Again, thank you for the clarification. I still contend that, as long as we are existing in the illusion, we experience infinity within the limits of the illusion. That doesn't make us any less infinite. As Nassim illustrates mathematically, infinity does exist within limits. I was attempting to distinguish infinity within limits from infinity, unqualified.

Have you ever read The Cosmic Serpent by Jeremy Narby? The author describes how he takes ayahuasca and has a vision of immense snakes forming and reforming themselves into various shapes and bodies. He gets the idea that the snakes are DNA and the forming and reforming are how evolution occurs: DNA chooses a new form for itself.

I've never read that. Sounds interesting!

This is similar to what I'm trying to describe about how infinity forms and reforms itself into different illusory systems of natural laws.

I'm probably repeating myself now. What I understood from unity100, and the part I agree with him on, was that any form whatsoever indicates a limitation of some sort.

Infinity contains everything; hence, everything is real, including that which is perceived inside the illusion. All is contained within infinity, and infinity is also contained within the illusion. The difference, as I perceive it, is that infinity has no limits, but infinity within an illusion has the limits of the illusion.

Right, but the limits are illusory. Ra says that we can drop them if we reach violet ray. Most who reach violet ray don't choose to because, as you and I have both said, the illusion is valuable, but it is possible.

Here is the part that reminded me of Christian Science. When you say, but the limits are illusory that seemed to imply the limits aren't real, or at least didn't get in the way of our infinity, which reminded me of the Christian Scientists saying the illness (catalyst) wasn't real.

The point I'm trying to make is that illusion, too, is real. Illusion is that which creates the limits. So unless we're residing in violet ray all the time, we really aren't infinite, although Ra said we are infinite, which I interpreted as encouragement for us to seek out that potential for infinity that is within us, rather than a concrete statement about our present state of awareness, which clearly isn't violet-ray all the time, so therefore isn't infinity. (sorry for the run-on sentence, but it reflects my run-on thoughts in this case!)

Respectfully, and I'm just trying to understand you here so I'm offering the feedback of how I'm interpreting your words, your words seem to imply to me that because it's illusion, it's not really a limit.

My contention is that the illusion itself IS the limit! It is no less real because it is illusion.

My interpretation of Ra's use of the word illusion is that it indicates a skewing, a distorting, of that which is real. That distortion might be an amplification of certain aspects, to the exclusion of other aspects, such as we might find in a fun-house mirror. A fun-house mirror doesn't show us what isn't really there; it just distorts what is really there.

When we cast aside the illusion (in meditation or when we leave this reality), we see our unity/infinity clearly, whereas we can't see it from within the illusion.

I think the words that don't resonate with me are "but it's illusion" which seems to imply something outside of infinity, when they are used in the context of describing infinity still existing within illusion, as though illusion didn't get in the way of accessing or expressing infinity.

Not sure if I'm making sense here...

Even Ra's statement, "You are infinity" contained an implicit qualifier: the word you. By its very nature, by being a definition, it is a qualifier. Who are we? That is the quest.

Exactly. That's the whole point. Who are we?

OK, so then do you agree that, 'we' having identity presents a qualifier, and therefore a distortion, and therefore a limit? (as long as we identify with ourselves as self.)

There is no conflict. We can be both infinite and finite. Ra stated we are infinite. Ra also stated we have distortion, which I interpret to mean finiteness. There is not only 1 state; there are infinite states, of finiteness. But only ONE infinity.

True. Ra says the hallmark of an infinite creator is variety. But they also encourage us to focus on the infinity rather than on the finity: "26.32 Why then be concerned with the grass that blooms, withers and dies in its season only to grow once again due to the infinite love and light of the One Creator? This is the message we bring. Each entity is only superficially that which blooms and dies. In the deeper sense there is no end to beingness."

I completely agree. However, we are trying to define infinity, and the entire discussion seems to be about whether the 'infinity' contained in us as entities is the same as the undifferentiated whole.

We are The Fool. But we are also all the other archetypes along the way.

Totally agree.

If we have limited our perception, for whatever reason, then we have essentially created another state. This other state, of finiteness, has its purpose too. I don't think we should negate it just because it is illusory and temporary. If it didn't have a purpose, we wouldn't be in it.

Right. That's what I've been saying throughout this thread. I went back and re-read the posts at the time of my initial involvement in this thread. The discussion went like this:

unity100: its not they chose and limited themselves to various manifestations and 'remembering'

βαθμιαίος: If I understand this quote (1.5) correctly, that's exactly what they did.

unity100: infinity can never be finity. because, if it could, it means it wasnt infinity from the start.

This last quote from unity100 is where I think he comes oh, so close to understanding what Ra's getting at but then goes off-road. It's true that infinity can't be finity. That's the point of the illusory mask. Infinity can't be other than what it is, but it can limit its viewpoint, and as you and I have both pointed out, it does that for very good reasons indeed.

My understanding from unity100 is that he is trying to make the point that the undifferentiated, undistorted infinity cannot be defined or contained, and thus, any attempts to even discuss it, are about something else (what I would call infinity within the limits of finity) rather than about infinity.

I support unity100's distinction, by making the point that when Ra stated You are infinity the word 'you' provided a qualifier.

I'm not sure whether unity100 agrees that infinity is contained within limits, so I won't speak for him here. But I think I can safely say that unity100 was referring to the undistorted infinity, and I agree with him on that point.

I agree! But I don't see anyone doing that right now!

Actually, I think we're all trying to stretch our minds to incorporate the Creator's viewpoint as we discuss infinity. Of course, we're not necessarily succeeding, but we're certainly trying.

Ra didn't say any portion contains infinity. Ra said any portion of any pattern contains infinity.

They actually said "any portion of any density or illusory pattern ... contains the One Creator which is infinity." It's ironic that you keep using this quote to explain things to me, because I've used it several times to try to explain the concept of a holographic universe to unity100.

I saw that, and I agree that it's a good quote to explain the holographic nature. Although, and sorry if I seem a like a cheerleader for Nassim Haramein, but honestly, his lectures illustrates this point so beautifully.

So I think we agree on the holographic part, and that this quote explains it.

I do still respectfully contend that there is another layer of meaning in this quote, and it is found by paying attention to the prepositional phrase contained therein.

Here's another quote on the same topic, "the unity of the Creator exists within the smallest portion of any material created by Love, much less in a self-aware being."['quote]

Agreed.

[quote='Bring4th_Monica' pid='19222' dateline='1283703777']
This is another of the quotes that I am suggesting we take into consideration, and then consider the sum total of all the quotes, rather than just a single quote.

I totally agree. I really think my position is what Ra was trying to articulate. I could be hopelessly wrong, which is why I asked before for other quotes that disagreed with my position. I don't think unity100 disagrees that I'm saying what Ra said; I think he just thinks Ra was wrong.

We're like the Christians trying to understand the Bible...we're all trying to understand the Law of One, but it's questionable whether any of us can be sure that our understanding is what Ra intended. As soon as we think we understand it, we might run the risk of closing ourselves to true understanding. I find new nuggets of understanding every time I re-read the books, and every time I discuss with others, such as now.

I agree that it is available to us. I also agree with unity100 that no one in this discussion, at this point of time, is offering that perspective.

You seem to have gotten the idea that I think I'm undistorted and infinite, or something. I assure you that's not the case! The veil is firmly in place for me, too.

That is precisely my point! And, I think unity100's as well. The point that we are in agreement on, about distinguishing the truly undistorted and infinite.

I again encourage you to dig those other quotes up and post them here if they haven't already been posted.

Well, I already did post some, and refer to them again.

Thank for you the stimulating and respectful discussion! This is fun!

To be honest, it's much more enjoyable now that you and others have joined the thread. It felt more like a battle before.

Thank you!

It can feel like a battle when there is disagreement, but I wonder how much of that is from disagreement, and how much is because we are attached to our own interpretations/viewpoints. Part of this catalyst is to learn from the viewpoints of others, instead of trying to get them to agree with us. Then it can feel like a party instead of a battle.