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

[βαθμιαίος]

Before I get to your various points, I will try to sum up where I think the discussion stands currently. First, though, I'd like to thank you for bearing with me and working this through. I have been told that my writing style is unnecessarily terse, so I appreciate your earnest attempts to understand what I'm trying to say.

My initial involvement in this thread revolved around whether it is possible for infinity to explore finity. The argument was being made that it was not possible, because infinity can never be other than what it is. I agree that infinity cannot be other than what it is, but I maintain that it can and does explore finity by donning the mask of illusion.

From the point of view of infinity, all is one and will always be one. The illusion that we enjoy does not change the fact that all is one. (Again, I'm not disparaging the illusion, just pointing out that it doesn't change the fact of oneness.)

You have pointed out that within the illusion we are bound by various rules including, most importantly, our limited viewpoints. I quite agree with that, too, with two caveats: the part contains the whole, and it is possible to adopt the Creator's viewpoint.

I don't think you disagree fundamentally with those caveats, but you do disagree with me that they refer to infinity without limits as opposed to infinity within limits. Am I right so far?

Assuming that the above is a reasonable summary of where we are so far, I'll address the question of whether the part contains the whole first. You wrote:

If it's a portion, then it has differentiation...it has distortion. You just agreed with me that anything that is distorted is not the whole. Therefore, I don't see how a portion can contain the whole, but I DO see how the portion can contain infinity...infinity within the limit of being a portion. ie. the pattern of the whole.

I don't really understand how the portion can contain the whole, either -- it's, literally, mind-boggling. But stepping back and attempting to look at it from the Creator's point of view, it makes intuitive sense to me. If you're going to investigate finity, you might as well do it all the way and not hold back any of yourself from your creation. You might as well wrap your whole, infinite self in each illusory shell. Why not?

Here's another quote from Ra that I just found that puts it a different way: "in the simplest iota of this complex exists in its entirety the One Infinite Creator." (30.5)

Our second area of disagreement seems to be whether it's possible to experience, within the illusion, infinity without limits.

You wrote (I've taken the liberty of assembling your quotes on the issue):

Unless we leave this reality and never return, and are absorbed back into Oneness, then our experience of infinity has at least one limit: TIME.

Thus, is it not infinity without limits.

----

Then I really don't understand the disagreement. Experiencing infinity while meditating, while accessing violet ray, etc. are all constraints of form.

Thus, I don't understand how it could be said that it's infinity undifferentiated.

----

Yes, but unless we can remain in that state infinitely, it still has a constraint of time, and therefore is not infinite in all ways.

----

I agree that we can access infinity when in a state of meditation. To get down to the crux of our disagreement, it is only whether that infinity still has any limits. I contend that it still has the limit of time, and therefore is not infinity unqualified.

It's true that most who reach the state we're talking about choose to return to the illusion and rejoin the world of time and space, but according to Ra they don't have to. The state of infinity that they reach is itself timeless and undifferentiated. The fact that they choose to rejoin our time doesn't change that.

Perhaps we could resolve our differences on this issue by agreeing that when we reach violet ray we are no longer actually within the illusion but are instead experiencing infinity itself. The idea just occurred to me and I'm not sure about it.

You had a couple other comments and questions that I'd also like to address.

Then, it logically follows that we aren't infinity, in the sense of the One, undifferentiated, undistorted whole, because:

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

I'd say a distortion qualifies as a concept.

This gets back to the question of what are we, really. Are we really our distorted, limited selves, or are we really the Creator in disguise?

The logical corollary, to my mind at least, of the ideas that 1) infinity cannot be other than what it is and 2) the part contains the whole is that the part must be the whole, impossible as that seems.

The thing is, I'm not trying to discuss or define undifferentiated, undistorted infinity. I'm trying to understand our finite, distorted experience.

OK, now I'm confused! Didn't you just say that the whole, undifferentiated infinity exists within us?

Yes. My point is that the idea that undifferentiated infinity exists within us is key to understanding and making the best use of our finite experience.

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

Agreed.

You also said: "I understand from them that the infinity contained within us is indeed the undifferentiated whole."

How are these 2 statements reconciled?

The first statement means that any definition of intelligent infinity cannot be accurate because definition means, literally, finding the end of. The second statement is not a definition of infinity. It's a statement about the nature of our illusion: the Creator is within.

As I responded earlier, Ra exists outside of linear time, so a future state to us might be present state to them. Remember, Ra sees time like we see geography.

It could be. Personally, I don't find that argument convincing because Ra was so careful and precise about language. If they'd meant to refer to a future state, I think they would have.

To clarify: I agree that we contain infinity. As I've stated, several times, I believe we contain infinity, within the limitation of our identity as an individual entity. To the degree that we maintain that identity, we still have infinity within, but we also have the limitation of being an entity. We can temporarily cast aside that individual identity and experience Oneness, but we return to our awareness of self; hence, we aren't yet infinite in all directions.

I'm not claiming that our individual identities are infinite in all directions. I think that much of our individual identities are illusory and finite: tall/short, rich/poor, white/black, male/female, etc. Ra says that we have "illusory husks" that prevent us from seeing self and other as one. I am claiming that the illusory husks don't change the reality of unity within.

But that's not to say that everything about our individuality is irrelevant or unimportant. Our seeking self, which tries so valiantly to learn, to understand, to grow, to heal, is indeed precious. It is the microcosm and, I think, is that which we will bring back to the Creator when we rejoin it.

Hopefully, you've re-read the quotes I already provided. Just as I am re-reading the quotes you already provided. Wink

I have, and I may be missing something, but they seem to support what I'm trying to say.

It's easy for any of us to assume that the other person isn't considering our viewpoint, when they disagree with it. I know I've been guilty of that before; I assumed that the other person couldn't possibly have considered my viewpoint, else how could they possibly disagree with it?

Could be, but when one's arguments are consistently ignored, mischaracterized, or disparaged it seems more like a reasonable conclusion than an assumption. That's why I thank you again for your willingness to engage in a friendly, co-seeking way.