Hello unity,
I am baffled as much as perplexed....but alas humored, and happily so. As you know from my many past posts, it is not my custom to break from the study of the Material very often to address a member personally, given it derails the intent of in fact concentrating on the Material. As I shared before, we are speaking to the Material, not about our selves, or each other. I will make an exception here as I believe it deserves it...but only briefly before making the larger point. Weak politicians and children are masters of moving away from a subject matter addressed to instead address the individual addressing his subject matter. We as a peoples are humorously easily hypnotized by this, and as such, love drama. The subject matter morphs before our eyes as a result. Suddenly we are no longer speaking to the subject, given the subject has become the person.
To that end, allow me to again say I am baffled as much as humored. You have suggested more than several times now, and on several threads no less, that I am either a fundamentalist on some level, or that I have a "fixation in defending an all powerful, infinite god concept - which I apparently believe in and feel that has to be true." My humor lies in the simple fact that we as humans can argue about anything at all. The Ra Material is for me the most fringe of the extreme of all esoterica I have ever come across. It is s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o w-a-y-y-y-y-y-y out there as to defy definition even within the realm of esoterica and wacky new ageism philosophy. The LOO is without doubt on the very periphery and fringes of anything that has graced the planet. How any one single member might even remotely classify another student member of the Material as fundamentalist is profoundly quite humorous indeed as a result. Please do see the humor.
Mind you, I am not injured, nor do I take offense. I am disappointed however that you have attempted to go personal. It weakens your position considerably, if not your argument significantly. Please be assured all is well given I am Quantum here as an individual who hides behind a handle, an avatar, or more honestly stated a false name. I am therefore invulnerable.
If you harbor objections to the term "One Infinite Creator", or the acronyms I have utilized by humorously asking for permission to save my fingers from typing out repeatedly "The One Infinite Creator" and electing instead to refer to "IT" in various posts simply as God, or as GOIC (God as The One Infinite Creator) and more recently as OIC (One Infinite Creator), be nominally assured that "IT" (The One Infinite Creator) is a term coined by Ra, rather than myself. I have gone to the pained extent for your benefit to state that I am not religious. How could one be either a fundamentalist or classified as orthodox religious when armed with the knowledge of the LOO? It is humorous indeed. It is incongruous and self contradictory, as in an oxymoron to suggest that one may be a student of the LOO and a fundamentalist at once. Do you see the humor?
That we are going circular is clear. I feel however that the preservation of the Material is not only important, but perhaps more significantly paramount the more we near The Harvest. To that end I will humbly persevere with patience. Not that the Material may be lost, certainly not, but that far more importantly that time is being lost. We are far better served to strive to understand the Material than to be striven to be understood. It isn't about us.
You have stated openly for all that you provide quotes to every single position you take. Actually you don't. You give explanations to the material and as often without providing source reference or quotes. Your response is that one may not be expected to explain your interpretations repeatedly. I agree. But referencing yourself as source, which you have in fact explicitly done, is not source. Where is the Ra quote specifically for the last question posed to you? You have also stated as openly that you have no problem disagreeing with Ra. How may we as readers of the the "Unity Philosophy of Infinity", hereinafter referred to as "Infunity" as a measure to preserve space, know when in fact by this statement when you are agreeing with Ra, and when you are not?
If a subject matter for its students begins even in its very inception to have differences in interpretation, it seems as clear that everything thereafter will be more muddied as a result. I ask therefore the humble forgiveness of those who may either be bored or who grow weary. I feel however these fundamentals are an extremely important topic to address. How may we as students even make the first steps into adept-hood if even the fundamentals and basics are so skewed? I do not dare to presume to speak for the LOO. How could I? I am simply a reporter of what I read. Please bear with me for the punch-line. It may well be worth the short read.
For example:
Lets us return to the fundamentals and basics of what has been given. It is important, and it grows more critical if we believe what we believe what we say we believe. We know the steps are as follows given by Don, Carla, and Jim and as compiled by Bob Childers, Ph.D in the LOO Study guide http://www.spiritofra.com/Ra-section%202.htm
Let us then as a group return to school for these basics. Mind you, this is not Quantum speaking. This is a group effort by the above named individuals. Please go to Section 2 of http://www.spiritofra.com/Ra-section%202.htm
Note before our lesson even begins that it states below explicitly "The Beginning Of All Things: The Beginning Of All Things is The Infinite One, which is The One Infinite Creator, which equals Source, which equals Intelligent Infinity. That about sums it up definitively, unless you wish to dispute source reference, source material, and those I dare say are closer to it as source individuals. Please respond to this unity. Please do not avoid it, or give your impressions of what you think it should say, but rather only your impression of what it in fact does say.
Thus we have a continuing unbroken process of Infinity as a whole, versus interrupted levels and new creations. Nothing has been created yet. Infinity was unaware. Infinity became aware. Infinity-Aware began to create. By creating did Infinity unaware, which became aware, became The one Infinite Creator creating. Note that this is a process of becoming. These processes occurred to Infinity Unaware. All remain One as Infinity, inclusive of the One Infinite Creator.
Let us now turn to distortion: Section 2 (scroll down further)
The One Infinite Creator, as Turtle states, and as you allow him to state in your response immediately to him, is not the first distortion.
How much more clear may it be stated? Are all of these individuals incorrect? Infinity was unaware. Infinity became aware. Infinity remained Infinity, once unaware, but now aware. Infinity Unaware = Infinity Aware= The One Infinite Creator as an unbroken process that continues even as we speak infinitely. THE BEGINNING OF ALL THINGS = THE INFINITE ONE = THE SOURCE = INTELLIGENT INFINITY. Note herein that nothing has even been created yet. Thus far we have a process, and not the distinction of levels. You seem to define the process of becoming as if though these were levels, or perhaps individuations. Levels are the distortions after the process of becoming. There has indeed been only one distinction made, that of Infinity becoming aware. But there has been no levels created as of yet. The distortions as levels come next: 1. Free Will, 2. Love and 3. Light.
This is a growth process. Upon the end of the cycle of coalescence, it seems highly unlikely that Light will reverse itself, as will love, as will free will, as will then too The One infinite Creator, which will become again only Infinity Aware without creating, which will alas become again Infinity Unaware? This is devolution rather than infinity evolving in love light and free will expanding infinitely.
If there is a problem with my understanding of the fundamentals as expressly given by these distinguished individuals, as much as what I ever so humbly likewise concur is my understanding of the Material as well, then it seems one of us has been studying the wrong sources and may need to start over.
I would ask in academic honesty that when a Ra quote is given, that you give your impressions specifically of what you believe Ra says, and not what you think it should say. This is an important distinction. Rather in fact give only your impression of what in fact you believe it, the quote, says. Giving your opinions, which agreed are too many and far too long to reiterate, rather than your understanding of Ra's statements is an entirely different exercise. An opinion to what Ra says may be given in a few words. One must agree that asking the reader to go back and read the many pages of your opinion is as tedious as it would be for you to repeat them. However, giving a simple answer to what you believe Ra says to a quote is an easy task. You instead repeatedly refuse by stating you have written far too much? Furthermore, in the same vein of academic honesty, if you do have of a different opinion than that of what Ra says, then be as honest and as clear and say so that we may be as clear when you do disagree with Ra, as you have expressly stated you sometimes do. It would save much time and clear up many misunderstandings far more expeditiously.
For whatever it is worth, my humble opinion is that what we are engaging in is not only critical, but a fundamental exercise as time well spent. The reader must then decide what is their opinion based on their own understanding. No one may learn/teach for another. But we as a group may assist in whatever small way we might as an exercise in STO to those that are either still new to the Materiel, or are in question, much like a smaller exercise or template of what it is that Ra attempts for us.
May I or any then offer specific Ra quotes as a service to garner your interpretation in but a few words specifically to those quotes? Let us begin with just this one below by yourself as regards what we just read above in the Study Guide as given by these distinguished individuals as per Ra. You said:
May I further encourage all readers to avail themselves to the Study Guide provided as a short course and overview, perhaps equally as important in many ways as is the search engine provided.
I close as my contribution, however humble it may be,
Love and Light,
~ Q ~
I am baffled as much as perplexed....but alas humored, and happily so. As you know from my many past posts, it is not my custom to break from the study of the Material very often to address a member personally, given it derails the intent of in fact concentrating on the Material. As I shared before, we are speaking to the Material, not about our selves, or each other. I will make an exception here as I believe it deserves it...but only briefly before making the larger point. Weak politicians and children are masters of moving away from a subject matter addressed to instead address the individual addressing his subject matter. We as a peoples are humorously easily hypnotized by this, and as such, love drama. The subject matter morphs before our eyes as a result. Suddenly we are no longer speaking to the subject, given the subject has become the person.
To that end, allow me to again say I am baffled as much as humored. You have suggested more than several times now, and on several threads no less, that I am either a fundamentalist on some level, or that I have a "fixation in defending an all powerful, infinite god concept - which I apparently believe in and feel that has to be true." My humor lies in the simple fact that we as humans can argue about anything at all. The Ra Material is for me the most fringe of the extreme of all esoterica I have ever come across. It is s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o w-a-y-y-y-y-y-y out there as to defy definition even within the realm of esoterica and wacky new ageism philosophy. The LOO is without doubt on the very periphery and fringes of anything that has graced the planet. How any one single member might even remotely classify another student member of the Material as fundamentalist is profoundly quite humorous indeed as a result. Please do see the humor.
Mind you, I am not injured, nor do I take offense. I am disappointed however that you have attempted to go personal. It weakens your position considerably, if not your argument significantly. Please be assured all is well given I am Quantum here as an individual who hides behind a handle, an avatar, or more honestly stated a false name. I am therefore invulnerable.
If you harbor objections to the term "One Infinite Creator", or the acronyms I have utilized by humorously asking for permission to save my fingers from typing out repeatedly "The One Infinite Creator" and electing instead to refer to "IT" in various posts simply as God, or as GOIC (God as The One Infinite Creator) and more recently as OIC (One Infinite Creator), be nominally assured that "IT" (The One Infinite Creator) is a term coined by Ra, rather than myself. I have gone to the pained extent for your benefit to state that I am not religious. How could one be either a fundamentalist or classified as orthodox religious when armed with the knowledge of the LOO? It is humorous indeed. It is incongruous and self contradictory, as in an oxymoron to suggest that one may be a student of the LOO and a fundamentalist at once. Do you see the humor?
That we are going circular is clear. I feel however that the preservation of the Material is not only important, but perhaps more significantly paramount the more we near The Harvest. To that end I will humbly persevere with patience. Not that the Material may be lost, certainly not, but that far more importantly that time is being lost. We are far better served to strive to understand the Material than to be striven to be understood. It isn't about us.
You have stated openly for all that you provide quotes to every single position you take. Actually you don't. You give explanations to the material and as often without providing source reference or quotes. Your response is that one may not be expected to explain your interpretations repeatedly. I agree. But referencing yourself as source, which you have in fact explicitly done, is not source. Where is the Ra quote specifically for the last question posed to you? You have also stated as openly that you have no problem disagreeing with Ra. How may we as readers of the the "Unity Philosophy of Infinity", hereinafter referred to as "Infunity" as a measure to preserve space, know when in fact by this statement when you are agreeing with Ra, and when you are not?
If a subject matter for its students begins even in its very inception to have differences in interpretation, it seems as clear that everything thereafter will be more muddied as a result. I ask therefore the humble forgiveness of those who may either be bored or who grow weary. I feel however these fundamentals are an extremely important topic to address. How may we as students even make the first steps into adept-hood if even the fundamentals and basics are so skewed? I do not dare to presume to speak for the LOO. How could I? I am simply a reporter of what I read. Please bear with me for the punch-line. It may well be worth the short read.
For example:
unity100 Wrote:there are levels, as you see in here. and what is named as 'creator', is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle.
Turtle Wrote:That's what I was trying to illustrate with my last post, but you provided an even clearer quote.I note here unity that you do not correct Turtle in your very next post as a follow up? Why? These are fundamentals that are critical upon which the foundation and cornerstones are laid of what we study. Perhaps you missed it as a result of not catching it, or perhaps you believe it?
Infinity, and Conscious Infinity.
The Law of One is Infinity (0 distortion)
The Law of Free Will or Confusion is Infinity Aware aka The One Infinite Creator (1st distortion)
Lets us return to the fundamentals and basics of what has been given. It is important, and it grows more critical if we believe what we believe what we say we believe. We know the steps are as follows given by Don, Carla, and Jim and as compiled by Bob Childers, Ph.D in the LOO Study guide http://www.spiritofra.com/Ra-section%202.htm
Let us then as a group return to school for these basics. Mind you, this is not Quantum speaking. This is a group effort by the above named individuals. Please go to Section 2 of http://www.spiritofra.com/Ra-section%202.htm
Note before our lesson even begins that it states below explicitly "The Beginning Of All Things: The Beginning Of All Things is The Infinite One, which is The One Infinite Creator, which equals Source, which equals Intelligent Infinity. That about sums it up definitively, unless you wish to dispute source reference, source material, and those I dare say are closer to it as source individuals. Please respond to this unity. Please do not avoid it, or give your impressions of what you think it should say, but rather only your impression of what it in fact does say.
http://www.spiritofra.com/Ra-section%202.htm Wrote:SECTION 2 -
THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS: SETTING UP THE GAME
7.THE BEGINNING OF ALL THINGS
I. THE INFINITE ONE = THE SOURCE = INTELLIGENT INFINITY
A. THE INFINITE ONE IS UNFOCUSED AND UNDIFFERENTIATED
QUESTION: Can you tell me the first known thing in creation?
RA: The first known thing in creation is infinity. (B1, 129)
B. AWARENESS DAWNS
QUESTION: What is the next step?
RA: Infinity became aware. (B1, 129)[insert Q, i.e. me: Note Infinity becoming aware becomes The Infinite One as seen below]
II. FROM THE INFINITE ONE DESIRING TO EXPERIENCE ITSELF ARISES THE CREATOR [insert Q, i.e. me: Note Infinity becoming aware becomes The Infinite One becomes The Creator, i.e, The One Infinite Creator as seen below. This is a growth process. It is unlikely that The One infinite Creator will become again Infinity Aware, which will become again Infinity Unaware?]
A. THE CREATOR CREATES (OUTER) SPACE
[insert Q, i.e. me: Creation as we know now begins. Note that infinity becoming aware was not creation. Nothing in creation happened yet. Infinity was going through a process, but was and still is Infinity]
RA: As the Creator decides to experience Itself It generates into that plenum (nothingness that has the potential for being) full of the glory and the power of the One Infinite Creator which is manifest to your perceptions as space or outer space. (B4, 65)
B. THE CREATOR DIVIDES INTO (OR CREATES) INDIVIDUALIZED PORTIONS OF ITSELF [insert Q: Creation as we know it truly begins]
RA: Step by step, the Creator becomes that which may know (or experience) Itself, and the portions of the Creator partake less purely in the power of the original word or thought. The creation itself is a form of consciousness which is unified.
Thus we have a continuing unbroken process of Infinity as a whole, versus interrupted levels and new creations. Nothing has been created yet. Infinity was unaware. Infinity became aware. Infinity-Aware began to create. By creating did Infinity unaware, which became aware, became The one Infinite Creator creating. Note that this is a process of becoming. These processes occurred to Infinity Unaware. All remain One as Infinity, inclusive of the One Infinite Creator.
Let us now turn to distortion: Section 2 (scroll down further)
The One Infinite Creator, as Turtle states, and as you allow him to state in your response immediately to him, is not the first distortion.
Study Guide continued Wrote:THE 1ST DISTORTION = FREE WILL
QUESTION: The 1st distortion of intelligent infinity is free will. Can you give a definition of this distortion?
RA: In this distortion of the Law of One it is recognized that the Creator will know Itself (or experience Itself). (B2, 7) The primal distortion is free will. (B2, 8)
QUESTION: The Creator then grants total freedom of choice in the ways of knowing. Is this correct? (B2, 7)
RA: This is quite correct. (B2, 7)
QUESTION: Then all other distortions spring from this first distortion, is this correct?
RA: It is both correct and incorrect.
In your illusion of physical existence all experience springs from the Law of Free will or the Way of Confusion.
In another sense, which we are learning, the experiences are this distortion. (B2, 7)
II. THE 2ND DISTORTION = LOVE
A. THE FOCUSING OF FREE WILL YIELDS LOVE
RA: The 1st distortion, free will, finds a focus which is known to you as logos, the Creative Principle or love. This focus may be called the 2nd distortion. (B1, 148)
RA: The second distortion is the distortion of love. (B2, 7-8)
B. LOVE SEEKS TO KNOW ITSELF
RA: The distortion love is the great activator and primal co-Creator of various creations using intelligent infinity. (B2, 8)... Love uses Its intelligent energy to create a certain pattern of illusions or densities in order to satisfy Its own intelligent estimate of a method of knowing itself. (B2, 9)
III. THE 3RD DISTORTION = LIGHT
(NOTE: Light, or light energy, is transformative: it may, or may not, be connected to love)
RA: This intelligent energy thus creates a distortion known as Light. From these 3 distortions come many, many hierarchies of distortions each having its own paradoxes to be synthesized, no one being any more important than another. (B1, 148)
How much more clear may it be stated? Are all of these individuals incorrect? Infinity was unaware. Infinity became aware. Infinity remained Infinity, once unaware, but now aware. Infinity Unaware = Infinity Aware= The One Infinite Creator as an unbroken process that continues even as we speak infinitely. THE BEGINNING OF ALL THINGS = THE INFINITE ONE = THE SOURCE = INTELLIGENT INFINITY. Note herein that nothing has even been created yet. Thus far we have a process, and not the distinction of levels. You seem to define the process of becoming as if though these were levels, or perhaps individuations. Levels are the distortions after the process of becoming. There has indeed been only one distinction made, that of Infinity becoming aware. But there has been no levels created as of yet. The distortions as levels come next: 1. Free Will, 2. Love and 3. Light.
This is a growth process. Upon the end of the cycle of coalescence, it seems highly unlikely that Light will reverse itself, as will love, as will free will, as will then too The One infinite Creator, which will become again only Infinity Aware without creating, which will alas become again Infinity Unaware? This is devolution rather than infinity evolving in love light and free will expanding infinitely.
If there is a problem with my understanding of the fundamentals as expressly given by these distinguished individuals, as much as what I ever so humbly likewise concur is my understanding of the Material as well, then it seems one of us has been studying the wrong sources and may need to start over.
I would ask in academic honesty that when a Ra quote is given, that you give your impressions specifically of what you believe Ra says, and not what you think it should say. This is an important distinction. Rather in fact give only your impression of what in fact you believe it, the quote, says. Giving your opinions, which agreed are too many and far too long to reiterate, rather than your understanding of Ra's statements is an entirely different exercise. An opinion to what Ra says may be given in a few words. One must agree that asking the reader to go back and read the many pages of your opinion is as tedious as it would be for you to repeat them. However, giving a simple answer to what you believe Ra says to a quote is an easy task. You instead repeatedly refuse by stating you have written far too much? Furthermore, in the same vein of academic honesty, if you do have of a different opinion than that of what Ra says, then be as honest and as clear and say so that we may be as clear when you do disagree with Ra, as you have expressly stated you sometimes do. It would save much time and clear up many misunderstandings far more expeditiously.
For whatever it is worth, my humble opinion is that what we are engaging in is not only critical, but a fundamental exercise as time well spent. The reader must then decide what is their opinion based on their own understanding. No one may learn/teach for another. But we as a group may assist in whatever small way we might as an exercise in STO to those that are either still new to the Materiel, or are in question, much like a smaller exercise or template of what it is that Ra attempts for us.
May I or any then offer specific Ra quotes as a service to garner your interpretation in but a few words specifically to those quotes? Let us begin with just this one below by yourself as regards what we just read above in the Study Guide as given by these distinguished individuals as per Ra. You said:
unity Wrote:therefore, confusing 'the creator', the focus point of infinite intelligence, with infinite intelligence itself, and, infinite intelligence, with infinity itself, would be incorrect.How do you reconcile any of your sentiments with these? It seems it can't be done. Better to ignore them then, or simply toss them it seems. May we have an answer specific to what seems unique to your sentiment of the above, or does your answer remain the same that you have already addressed it, which is tantamount to refuting what is given. Would you agree? Is it not academically dishonest to suggest that questions such as this, which are so blatantly present as to be as equally blatantly obvious, are unproductive?
May I further encourage all readers to avail themselves to the Study Guide provided as a short course and overview, perhaps equally as important in many ways as is the search engine provided.
I close as my contribution, however humble it may be,
Love and Light,
~ Q ~