(10-15-2010, 06:27 PM)Quantum Wrote: Actually Unity, you have never been this honest before, or as candid, or as direct. You see, I always thought that you did in fact agree with the LOO completely, were an active student of it, and that you were a strong supporter for it, but that you perhaps somehow were reading things into the Material which otherwise were not there, or that you somehow were simply interpreting it differently.
actually, i have been more than this 'honest' before, in the very threads i linked to you in the first repetition you have made. the thread i have pointed you to, i have explicitly stated that i did not agree with Ra at one particular point, and i have stated those points.
apparently, you havent read that thread, despite there have been a lot of the issues that you think you were posing, discussed before you even posed them.
moreover, i have expressed that i did not agree with Carla at a particular interpretation of some concept, in a less detailed and intricate subject. had you have searched for threads or posts by unity100, you would have seen that too. that still would be understandable, since, one couldnt read each and every thread to find it. so, it doesnt matter much.
however, the former, matters a lot. you have brought various arguments, you have been replied that exact arguments and even more was posed, and discussed before, and you have been given a direct pointer to the topics therein. moreover, you have come back, and said that, after reading them you saw 'everything about what i was thinking' in an even clearer light.
yet, you came up, saying that 'you have never been this honest before'.
only conclusions can be :
a) you havent read any of the threads you pointed to, and just kept on discussing on your pleasure, expecting that, somehow, the entity would again reiterate 7 pages long of discussion just because you have asked. totally disrespectful to the person you are discussing with ...
b) you have read and noticed those, but you have forgotten them, henceforth coming and saying that 'you have not been this honest before'. totally unproductive and inefficient.
<-- this line is a reference point that i will refer to, in a following paragraph -->
Quote:The Philosophy of Unity as opposed to the philosophy of the LOO. All may at last fully know where you stand.
dont exaggerate. there is no such 'philosophy of unity as opposed to philosophy of the LOO'. when i disagree, i state that i disagree, and it is explicit and evident.
some conclusion doesnt being to your liking regarding a particular belief/philosophy you hold, does not mean that it is a 'philosophy of someone else' as opposed to 'philosophy of LOO'.
more importantly, ra, is not the bringers of unchanging dogma. they are also those who are teaching/learning and learning/teaching. moreover, the concepts of 6d, 7d, and beyond is explicitly left to the own learning of the adept, by them, not to intervene with the adept's free will.
............
other parts of your post, more claims and various 'accusations' of things that do not validate your own perspective and conclusions, i am going to skip by. im not interested in such discussion of accusation and coercion to forcibly validate any kind of belief or dogma.
...........
Quote:My last rhetorical question to you would be: what do you hope to accomplish as a student of a Material which you have yet to fully grasp, this by first disagreeing with it and concepts contained within therein? Isn't this rather self defeating to be in studentship to a said material? It is a rhetorical question only and as such one that needs not even an answer given the answer is already self-evident to any seeker in further study, of at least the LOO.
and my response to your last rhetorical question is, why do you even hope that someone you are wanting to discuss with, to actually honor your desire and discuss with you, despite you havent given the slightest credence and importance and shortest span of attention to what they have said, DESPITE you, - for some reason - claiming to have done as such, but have NOT .....
at this point, refer to the reference point in the above paragraphs i left a marker at.
......................
as of this point, i am under the impression that, you are discussing and debating to 'win'. and you are employing various approaches to do as such.
the point at which, you have said 'you are good, you are very good', regarding the time when i stated that no entity would be able to have a 6d harvest on a 3d planet without a society complex being present, was the time when i got that impression first. what does 'good' even mean in this context :
a) you were surprised that someone else noticed something you havent noticed before, despite it being a VERY important detail in regard to the question that is being debated. and you have expressed your surprise. i would prefer it to have been as such ... however :
b) or, you have noticed it before, and it was a weak spot in your approach/argument, and you were amused that the 'opposing' debater have noticed and posed it. and you have expressed your amusement. common sense says that it shouldnt be as such. but then again :
you have, despite that important factor was clearly making a harvest of 4d, 6d impossible at a 3d planet which didnt have any 6d society complexes preparing for a harvest for 6d (actually that planet not supporting 6d at all, with Ra residing in 5d of this planet), you have rephrased and reiterated your argument, trying to go around the society complex necessity for 6d harvest. and when the other person have further elaborated and stressed the requirements for society complex harvests as in what has been relied to us, you have, AGAIN, used similar words of surprise like 'very good', DESPITE the other party expressing his slight disturbance/annoyance with that kind of thing.
at this point, i have stated that, i got the impression that you were seeing the discussion at hand as a kind of a sport, a duel, in which one has to 'win', and experiencing the quick 'wits' of the fencer you were dueling with, and i found that unproductive. that is the point i have let go of discussing with you, because this can happen due to either of the below :
a) you are really seeing discussions as duels in which people win or lose arguments, and they are battles of 'quick wits', and acting and behaving as such, using any kind of means to win the argument
b) you are extremely careless about the material you are touting like a holy book and waving over our heads, and accusing others of not sticking by it or not knowing it at detail, despite claiming to be doing as such yourself. and, still, you havent noticed a VERY important detail regarding a very important concept that is being discussed, saying that you havent reflected on the material you speak of, despite attempting to talk on it in that detail. moreover, you have attempted to ignore that information, despite it has been expressed and you noted its existence and importance with your own words.
a makes someone totally undesirable to discuss with. b, makes someone unproductive to discuss with.
and that is why, i am not discussing anything with you, since then. you have requested honesty, and there it is, direct, and honest. with options too ...
i may be wrong in my observations. i may be right. however, the behavior you have undertaken in the preceding threads, have been in that direction. therefore, i am refraining from discussing with you.
this is probably my last response to you. i see that as i refrain from any reply, you are increasing the level of accusations, claims, and direct coercive expressions you are employing. i have observed it in another discussion you have made with someone else, without me participating in it at all.
i didnt refrain from replying to people who have even directly assaulted and insulted me in the past. yet, im refraining from replying to you, due to the above. it is not the wording and seeming formality and politeness that make or break correspondence.
if, with time, i observe that your approach to discussions have changed, my perspective in discussing with you, may change.
i wish you a nice day.
(10-15-2010, 06:32 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: The IAM presence lies forever in the center and forever in the now... It will never move away from us it will never be in the future or the past. And it will never be fragmented differentiated or distorted. A subtle background reminder of who we are. All the things that happened, becoming aware, even the whole universe being created doesn't change that initial fact.
ra, also says 'i am Ra' as opposed to 'we are Ra'. to Carla, or to any other entity which have contacted them, they feel as 'ra'.
yet, this doesnt change the fact that there are 60 million+ entities in Ra society complex.
the 'IAM' presence, regardless of it is eloquent capitalization of letters, is the same.
you may feel that infinite intelligence is 'one' entity. yet, there are infinite refractions, characteristics, aspects, focuses exist within it. the fact that outside observer cannot perceive the differences because the finites are extremely harmonized, doesnt erase those finites. just like, how the 60 million+ entities and their characteristics, that exist within Ra, do not go away by Ra feeling like a harmonized, uniform entity to us.
Quote:The things you describe are merely leaves on a tree. They grow and fall, where you suggest they will reincarnate again I suggest they will turn to compost. That feeds the tree. They are not eternal they are part of the illusion. IAM is not, it perceives those lives. And it perceives the identification of those leaves with themselves.
just like how prefixing an entity that exists within Ra society complex 'mere' or 'merely exists' doesnt make that entity 'none', 'nil', 'illusion', dubbing a tree that grows in the fruit does not make that fruit a 'non'.
the fruit, exists. it is a part of that tree, it is a characteristic that is included in the entire thing that is the tree + roots + fruits + whatever.
Quote:What you call real is as real as matter, as real as tables, chairs ideas, things we can touch, sense, taste smell think about, love or be insulted by... What you call real is what a mystic calls the illusion of city block consciousness. Because he's gone beyond, risen above, tripped out of that consciousness. What Ra calls becoming one with intelligent infinity.
infinite intelligence is discovering its own self, by refracting to infinite finites. you cannot discover, what does not exist. therefore, finites, exist.
Quote:The beginning and end of the octave exists out of time unity... It is merely our 3d manifestation associating time with this. But there is no real temporal distance between us and the end or start of the octave.. The whole circle is one thing. One IAM... One infinite creator.
our 'mere' 3d manifestation's associated time, still exists, when a wanderer from the next octave comes back to this octave. that octave is in our 'future', yet, when a wanderer comes back to this octave, this octave, STILL exists. implying that, the time and happenings here, at this point in time, still keep existing, infinite octaves later.
'time' is change. actually it doesnt matter whether it happens on octave level, or planetary level. from the perspective of entire universe, the logos, state may be timeless compared to ours, change is non, everything stagnant. but, from the scale of the central sun of this universe (and therefore universe), the ratios are much higher. if the changes are much slower, the change is much bigger too. therefore, a noticeable change from that perspective, still exists.