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

[βαθμιαίος]

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.

Very true. As Ra says, and Turtle pointed out, any concept of the one intelligent infinity is incorrect.

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.

LOL! I know the feeling. To quote Ra again, this whole discussion is "a poignant example of both the necessity and the near-hopelessness of attempting to teach."

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.

I don't disagree that within the illusion our normal experience of infinity is within limits. But I do understand Ra to be saying that, if we do the disciplined work of opening violet ray, we can experience infinity without limits.

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.

I don't disagree with that, either.

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!)

I think we're getting closer to agreement. I don't disagree at all that our present state of awareness is limited. That's really the point I'm trying to make. Our awareness is limited because of our choice to explore finity. If we could but drop the limited awareness, our awareness would again be that of the Creator. And we can drop the limits by either opening violet ray or by reaching seventh density. It's very true that both usually take a great deal of time and effort, but Ra does say that it can be done in a moment.

I do disagree with the idea that when Ra said we are infinity they were referring to some future state. Here is a longer excerpt from that quote: "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."

As you can see, there's nothing in the quote referring to a future state. As I understand it, they are explaining how things are right now.

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.

I see it as a self-imposed limit.

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

I agree.

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 agree, as long as you're saying that we can cast aside the illusion in meditation.

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.

I definitely agree that that illusion gets in the way of accessing or expressing infinity. That's its job, as I understand it: to let us explore finity.

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

I know that feeling, too!

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.)

Yes.

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.

True, and on that point we may still disagree. Of course, I don't really know, and I'm not claiming I do. But I do trust Ra, and I understand from them that the infinity contained within us is indeed the undifferentiated whole.

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.

The thing is, I'm not trying to discuss or define undifferentiated, undistorted infinity. I'm trying to understand our finite, distorted experience. Unity100 said "infinity can never be finity. because, if it could, it means it wasnt infinity from the start." I agree with this. Infinity can't be finity. The question then is how does finity come about. My answer, which I've really just cribbed, to the best of my ability, from Ra, is that infinity masks or distorts itself into the illusion we experience. That means that it's still infinity; it just appears, from our limited viewpoint, not to be.

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.

What I was trying to object to was when you used that quote to support the idea that we contain the pattern of infinity rather than infinity itself. My point is that Ra said each portion of any illusory pattern contains infinity, not that each portion contains the pattern of infinity.

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.

Me, too. That's why I ask for quotes that disagree with what I'm saying Ra meant.

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.

It wasn't so much that my interpretation wasn't accepted as that it didn't seem to even be considered.