12-08-2010, 10:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-08-2010, 10:21 PM by Nabil Naser.)
Here we go again.
We are always working on understanding infinity. Isn't that what science is all about? Isn't that what religion, theosophy, philosophy, and the Ra material are all about?
If one is provided a tool to understand, one can use that tool if he or she chooses.
The subject of infinity is not crucial to understanding how the Law of One works. The Law works within the material universe as well. This is the universe of finite values.
We can get stuck on infinity if we choose, or we can consider the Law of One, and how it works.
If you have read the material that I am sharing and are unable to understand it, and you would like clarification, I would be happy to answer any questions.
I am offering you an explanation of the law. You can ignore it if you prefer, or you can consider it.
Going in circles helps no one. Getting stuck on semantics gets us nowhere. This is not a language exercise. It is specific material, with specific numbers and geometry, that explains the law, while also explaining the science that we know. It happens to also agree with a lot of material from many religions. That's the crux of the matter.
We are always working on understanding infinity. Isn't that what science is all about? Isn't that what religion, theosophy, philosophy, and the Ra material are all about?
If one is provided a tool to understand, one can use that tool if he or she chooses.
The subject of infinity is not crucial to understanding how the Law of One works. The Law works within the material universe as well. This is the universe of finite values.
We can get stuck on infinity if we choose, or we can consider the Law of One, and how it works.
If you have read the material that I am sharing and are unable to understand it, and you would like clarification, I would be happy to answer any questions.
I am offering you an explanation of the law. You can ignore it if you prefer, or you can consider it.
Going in circles helps no one. Getting stuck on semantics gets us nowhere. This is not a language exercise. It is specific material, with specific numbers and geometry, that explains the law, while also explaining the science that we know. It happens to also agree with a lot of material from many religions. That's the crux of the matter.
(12-08-2010, 09:49 PM)unity100 Wrote: my objection is with what is below :
(12-08-2010, 01:11 AM)Nabil Naser Wrote: Let us review what the Ra Code is all about.
It is about The Law of One, and an Octave of Densities. The 8th being the first of the next Octave. Thus there are 7 densities only. These densities begin with the creation of Light. Light is connected to something called Love.
If we can find a principle that can explain all this, shouldn't we consider and study it? What if we can show that the number 7 itself is the solution?
What if we can prove The Law of One by using two values only, spheres and the number 7? Shouldn't we take a closer look?
What I have been sharing with you is such principle. We can argue endlessly about what we think Infinity is, or we can try to understand it. Ra said that the 3rd density is not the density of understanding. They also talked about Paradoxes. They said that they "offer truth without proof". But since the truth is The Law of One, everything thing that they said must agree with it. This is the same like offering proof. When they describe how the Law of One works, they offer proof of its existence.
Ra has offered us a unique opportunity to understand our reality, origin, and potential future. They have left us a lot of clues, and all the information we need to understand nature and ourselves.
This is as real as it gets. The veil is being removed. A new Dawn begins.
the bold sentences, contradict.
moreover, 'arguing endlessly about what we think infinity is' and, 'trying to understand it', are shown as things that are different.
in the end what comes up as a meaning seems to be if we attempt to approach understanding infinity with nabil's numbers, it will be 'understanding infinity', but, with anything else, it will be 'endlessly arguing about what we think infinity is'.
correct me if im wrong.