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

[Monica]

I don't. I suggest it in the context of what unity100 states

You are entitled to your interpretation of what Ra says, what I say, what unity100 or any other member says. But we start down a slippery slope when we attempt to summarize or simplify another's words, because that inevitably results in more distortion. My interpretation of Ra's words, and of unity100's words, is different from yours. It is not a given that either of our interpretations is correct. Therefore, I respectfully request that we allow other members to speak for themselves.

May I ask your simple opinion as to which you believe, so that we are clear? Do you believe that the One Infinite Creator that Ra greets us in in every single session is not the same as was Infinity once unaware that now is? ....and which is not unity100's Infinity?

I have already answered that question, and turned it inside out and sideways. I honestly cannot think of anything to add to what I've already said. Regrettably, I wasn't able to convey my opinion on this in a way that was understood. Or, maybe it was understood but simply not agreed with. I don't think we'll ever reach a conclusive resolution, so repeating myself won't help.

Suffice to say that I don't see it as the simplistic 'either/or' scenario you are asking me to choose from.

unity100 indeed makes very many compelling arguments for Infinity for which we owe him gratitude. Credit where credit is due. These are not at issue however. Its the ones that are contrary and openly so that I address.

I disagree that his points are contrary to the Law of One. I happen to agree with many (though not all) of his points.

What part of the summation do you disagree with respect to what unity100 wrote? These are his words, not mine.

Those may be his words, but without the context and nuances necessary for understanding them. I won't speak for unity100 but the gist of the summation does not, in my opinion, accurately convey his points.

Anyway, why is it so important to scrutinize and analyze one particular member's opinions? Unity100 has expressed his opinions, and others have as well. Why are his opinions being singled out for scrutiny? If you wish to know more about his opinions, perhaps you can if/when he posts more. But I'm not in the habit of discussing other members' posts. I don't see the point of it. We can all express our own opinions without other members speaking for us.

"Most illusion have their basis in reality"? You mean some do and some don't? Which ones do and which ones don't? More importantly, which ones as an example don't?

Maybe they all do. I can't think of any that don't. Even unicorns are real in some reality.

But except for that which does not exist, we may dispense with what is and is not within Infinity questions as it is self-evident that all that exists is within Infinity. But we must agree that there are things which do not exist.

A negative cannot be proven.

There are things which do not exist within this context, are there not?

Not that I can think of. If I can think of it, then it's real in some reality, even if it's only in my mind.

Were it otherwise then Infinity would be less than Intelligent Infinity. Certainly the Creator wishes and desires for some things not to exist.

That is an assumption. We cannot speak for the Creator.

Certainly there exist fine laws, rules, order, and a system within Infinity as opposed to EVERYTHING exists in Infinity.

We have a fundamental difference in opinion as to what infinity is. I respect your opinion but categorically disagree with it.

This does not limit Infinity but rather orders it intelligently. Galaxies and planets do not spin and revolve in both directions simultaneously just because it is a consideration within Infinity. Nor do dragons decimate villages and planets just because it is a consideration within Infinity. So no, not everything is in Infinity. In fact in this context it may be argued that there are a great many more things which are not in Infinity than there are those things which are in Infinity.

That is pure speculation.

Answered above. But not everything is real....correct?

I believe everything is real in some dimension. Dreams, for example.

I imagine there are things the Creator wishes not to create or imagine, don't you?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you don't consider imagination real. I do. It's just unpotentiated.

are thoughts really real????

Well sure.

An entity as I understand it is a sentient life replete with senses. How do you define entity?

Yes, but in this context, I was referring to entity as in a thing, something that exists, to distinguish it from that which is symbolizes; ie. illusion as illusion, rather than that which is it distorting.

Quantum, we are all doing our best to understand the Law of One. I don't think any one person's views can be accused of being contradictory to the Law of One just because their interpretation of Ra's words may be different from our own.

Most of us are doing our best to understand. Agreed. Some of us however openly do not agree with some of the points of the LOO which is contrary to understanding and is in fact an admission to disagreement.

However, it is opinion as to whether some of these points are in fact contrary to the Law of One. They are subject to interpretation and it cannot be assumed that our own interpretation is the 'correct' one. Let us not fall into the trap that the religions do and start making judgments about who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' in their interpretations.

I am not accusing unity of anything. He openly accuses himself of being in disagreement ( i.e. contrary) to some of the LOO and Ra quotes. This may not be defined as an interpretation that is different when it is his opinion in admission and disagreement to Ra that is different. Let us be fair and not suggest that accusations are being made when in fact admissions are being written.They are unity100's words. unity100 states he has no problems disagreeing with some of the LOO or Ra by his own statements. If he disagrees openly and honestly, as he does, for which I commend him for his forthrightness and integrity, how else may one phrase what he openly states as an admission of disagreement other than as contradictory? Contrary is a word with a definition. There is no judgment or condemnation where in fact there is admission. It is an admission, honestly and openly so.

What is at issue here is that the points that you consider to be in disagreement with the Law of One are not necessarily the points that others (including the author of said points) consider in disagreement.

Just because someone says "I disagree with Ra sometimes" that is not an admission of disagreement on points we happen to personally disagree with. I happen to agree with some points and consider them in alignment with the Law of One, so it's simply not accurate to assess the entire disagreement as being contrary to Ra's intention.

Having said all this, I understand fully your greater motive of attempting to keep a decorum of civility and a modicum of order. It is good that you do so. But let also a mans truth and admission stand as his own as well that he disagrees.

Each person's truth can indeed stand on its own. Speaking for someone else is entirely different.

So, am I understanding you correctly? You are saying that:
1. We are the Creator
2. We are infinity
3. Illusion ('mask') is not real; therefore not part of infinity
4. We can don our mask or take it off
5. Since we are ALL, and we can exclude our masks, then the masks are...not part of ALL?

1. yes
2. yes
3. answered above, i.e. some illusions are real, some are not. Not real must also be part of infinity albeit non-manifest
4. We are Infinity behind the mask. This is in no manner to suggest that all are capable of performing higher mathematics or concerto piano pieces anymore than All are capable of said mask removing. They are lost in their masks as shared previously, but lost by choice versus a terrible punishment inflicted upon them. Are we not here to pierce the mask (veil)? Some have. I suggest that there have been adepts that certainly have. They are the Way-showers. They certainly have removed their masks. Don't you agree?
5. The masks are indeed part of the All as shared

I see this as a contradiction. If we are the Creator, and we are infinity, then we are ALL. If, as you say, the illusion is not part of us, then how can it be part of ALL?

You also said that the 'mask' is not real. If it's not real, it's not part of ALL. But now you say the 'mask' is part of ALL.

Sorry, but this feels to me like getting drawn into a maze, an illusion itself...getting this entire discussion deeper than it needs to be. Once again, I do respect your opinions but we don't even have a common ground here, so I hope you don't mind if I discontinue participation.

I contend that the illusion too is part of infinity. Nothing can be outside infinity.

Sure it can. That which is not created and so illusory that it does not exist.

If it doesn't exist, then it's not an it, is it?

And therefore not part of the equation.

The illusion, however, does exist. It's a construct.

We go in circles.

Agreed. I'm getting dizzy. I'm getting off the merry-go-round.

This too is your opinion. The opposite can just as easily be argued. Who is to say who is correct? None of us can authoritatively speak for Ra. We can only offer our own interpretations. This isn't a religion and it cannot be said that a certain member has it 'right' while another member is 'wrong.'

True enough. But we have unity100 stating it is contrary, not myself or βαθμιαίος, or anyone else.

I don't think that's accurate. As I stated above, I see many points which unity100 (and I, as well) consider to be in alignment with the Law of One, according to our interpretations, and you are stating that he claims to be in disagreement with the Law of One. While it is true that unity100 has admitted to being in disagreement on some points, they are not all the same points you consider them to be. Therefore, I ask you again to please avoid making blanket assessments about unity100 or any other member's views.

May I in closing for clarity's sake ask your simple opinion once more? Which do you believe so that we are clear? Do you believe that the One Infinite Creator that Ra greets us in in every single session is not the same as was Infinity unaware, that now is (aware)?.........and which is not unity100's Infinity?

It is impossible for me to answer this to you, since I don't agree with the very premise of the question. In addition, I don't consider my views to be 'beliefs' because that term, to me, indicates a static state of dogma, which I try to avoid. I prefer to consider my views as ever-unfolding as I learn and grow.