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

[βαθμιαίος]

The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle called by us as closely as we can create understanding/learning in your language, intelligent infinity.

Hmm. OK, so how is this relevant, given that Ra also equates unity with intelligent infinity (27.7) and with infinity (1.5)? A focusing doesn't mean that intelligent infinity is any less than infinity or a subset of it. Think about a beam of light shined at a magnifying glass. That which was diffuse before it hit the glass is intensified on the other side of it. There's not less of it, it's just concentrated.

My interpretation of "You are infinite" is that infinity is contained in us. How else could we be all of unity (undistorted) and yet distorted?

Again, it was "you are infinity," not "you are infinite." But I don't disagree that infinity is contained within us.

But no one has answered my question: What is illusion?

I tried to do that in my last post. I think it's anything that gives the idea that we are separate or finite.

Is illusion not distortion itself? And yet, also included in infinity? If infinity is unity of all, then infinity must include illusion. Therefore, it doesn't seem accurate to say that infinity is all there is, and anything less than that is 'just illusion' as though illusion were somehow outside of infinity, as though they were competing.

I'm not sure if you're saying that I used the term "just illusion," but I don't believe I did. My point throughout this thread has been that the infinite is contained within and available within the illusion. I understood unity100 to be arguing the opposite, that we weren't infinite and did not have access to it.

So, I contend that we cannot simultaneously be undistorted and "adopt the finite viewpoint" ...HOWEVER we CAN simultaneously be infinite and distorted.

What's the difference? Undistorted = infinite; adopting a finite viewpoint = distorted.

It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity. Thus all begins and ends in mystery.

Note that we contain infinity...we contain the One Infinite Creator. And yet, we are distorted. We are holographic pieces of the whole, containing a pattern of the whole, but we are not the whole.

How can we contain the whole and not be the whole? The point is there is only one, the one infinite Creator. That means that you are the one infinite Creator. You have to be; it's all there is.

Ra said, "look into a mirror; see the Creator" and "look at another; see the Creator." They didn't say see part of the Creator or a distorted reflection of the Creator. They said see the Creator.

Similarly, when they said "when one is enlightened are not all enlightened?" how else could all be enlightened other than if all were one and one were all?

[Poffo]

This light of love was made to have in its occurrences of being certain characteristics, among them the infinite whole paradoxically described by the straight line, as you would call it. This paradox is responsible for the shape of the various physical illusion entities you call solar systems, galaxies, and planets of revolving and tending towards the lenticular.

Would anyone like to tackle the above paragraph about the infinite whole described by a straight line??

*raises hand*

Here's my interpretation, as imperfect as it may be:

len·tic·u·lar
   /lɛnˈtɪkyələr/ Show Spelled[len-tik-yuh-ler]

–adjective
1. of or pertaining to a lens.
2. biconvex; convexo-convex.
3. resembling the seed of a lentil in form; lentil-shaped.

Planets/galaxies/solar systems tend to be round and the ultimate symbol of roundness is the perfect circle, though such perfection is rare in the universe with elliptical orbits and imperfect spheres as planets, but Ra did say, "the shape...revolving and tending towards the lenticular", which for the most part is circular.

The circle is simply a straight line segment that has been curved around so that each end touches the other. We can think of a circle as an infinitely sided regular polygon (regular meaning all sides are of the same length, like an equilateral triangle). This is because in succeeding regular polygons (triangle -> square -> pentagon -> hexagon -> etc.) the internal angles between any two adjacent sides becomes closer and closer towards being 180° which is a straight line; triangle = 60°, square = 90°, pentagon = 108°, ..., 137-gon = 177.37226277°..., 369-gon = 179.02439...°, 10000-gon = 179.964°, etc.
[For anyone who wants to calculate the internal angles of a polygon, use this simple formula: (n-2) × 180° / n, where n = the number of sides]

As you can see, the more sides to your polygon means the internal angle will get as close to 180° as possible but never actually reach it. After a certain point of increasing the number of sides, a regular polygon will look like just like a circle if one doesn't have a microscope handy to actually see the different sides close up. Even this 18 sided polygon is basically a circle, so would you really be able to tell a 10000-gon from a true circle?



This is why a circle is an infinitely sided regular polygon, because only one with infinite sides would actually reach 180°. This means that the circle is actually a straight line curved back on itself. This also means that an equilateral triangle, the simplest possible polygon, is a like a circle of 3 sides, as weird as that sounds. If you look at a circle, made by a compass say, and cover it up so that you can only see the tiniest little bit of a line, it is virtually straight, but you'd have to zoom in forever to not actually see the curve....paradoxical? Another fun thing to visualize is that if you could actually make a polygon with internal angles of 180° it would instantaneously flatten out to a straight line!

How does light relate to circles? Well, the light that we know of as electromagnetic waves/radiation is essentially an electric field and a magnetic field which are orthogonal (at right angles) to each other, and each takes on the shape of a sine wave:



For anyone who remembers their trigonometry from high school, the sine wave is generated by plotting points around a circle onto a 2D (x,y) graph.

[for an awesome animation of this process click the image!]

Assuming a vacuum clear of gravitationally significant bodies, light would travel in a straight line, but interestingly it is made of these two sine wave fields that move in and out of each other, and the waves can be described as the plot of points on a circle.

So, you could think of a circle as representing the infinite whole, in that it can be a container for ALL and also that there is no real beginning or ending point to it. We also could say that what we know of as white light contains all the colours of the visible light spectrum and is thus a unity of finite elements.

I hope this made some sense!

/:idea:

[βαθμιαίος]

Thanks, Poffo. I believe I followed your discussion, but I'm still not clear why a straight line describes the infinite whole. Is it that the straight line eventually becomes a circle?

Also, how does the straight line/infinite whole paradox cause galaxies and solar systems to tend toward the lenticular?

...the infinite whole paradoxically described by the straight line, as you would call it. This paradox is responsible for the shape of the various physical illusion entities you call solar systems, galaxies, and planets of revolving and tending towards the lenticular.

[unity100]

Note that we contain infinity...we contain the One Infinite Creator. And yet, we are distorted. We are holographic pieces of the whole, containing a pattern of the whole, but we are not the whole.

this is putting as shortly as it can be put.

[Monica]

Hmm. OK, so how is this relevant, given that Ra also equates unity with intelligent infinity (27.7) and with infinity (1.5)? A focusing doesn't mean that intelligent infinity is any less than infinity or a subset of it. Think about a beam of light shined at a magnifying glass. That which was diffuse before it hit the glass is intensified on the other side of it. There's not less of it, it's just concentrated.

Well, this is of course subject to interpretation, and my interpretation isn't necessarily any more or less correct than yours. In my interpretation of Ra's words, that focusing indicates a change in form, just as the light is still light, but changes form when it is focused into a beam.

My interpretation of "You are infinite" is that infinity is contained in us. How else could we be all of unity (undistorted) and yet distorted?

Again, it was "you are infinity," not "you are infinite." But I don't disagree that infinity is contained within us.

OK. But do you agree that we are distorted?

Ra stated that galaxies are distorted. Are we any less distorted than a planetary body?

But no one has answered my question: What is illusion?

I tried to do that in my last post. I think it's anything that gives the idea that we are separate or finite.

Is illusion infinity?

Or is illusion a distortion?

What is illusion made of? Does it have substance? Or is an error in knowledge or belief?

Is illusion not distortion itself? And yet, also included in infinity? If infinity is unity of all, then infinity must include illusion. Therefore, it doesn't seem accurate to say that infinity is all there is, and anything less than that is 'just illusion' as though illusion were somehow outside of infinity, as though they were competing.

I'm not sure if you're saying that I used the term "just illusion," but I don't believe I did.

My apologies for implying that you used those terms. My interpretation (perhaps misinterpretation?) of your words was that illusion was somehow 'not real' ie. false ie. not really part of reality, maybe even separate from infinity. That is what we think of when we think of the word illusion, right? A magician's trick, showing us something not real?

And yet, how can anything not be part of infinity? Illusion too is part of infinity.

I didn't find an exact definition of illusion from Ra, but we know that:

1. We think we are separate due to illusion but we're really ONE.
2. We are infinity
3. We are distortions/distorted

How are these seeming paradoxes reconciled? How can we be infinity and yet distortions of infinity?

My point throughout this thread has been that the infinite is contained within and available within the illusion.

Agreed.

I understood unity100 to be arguing the opposite, that we weren't infinite and did not have access to it.

I cannot speak for unity100, but that's not how I interpreted his words. I thought unity100 was saying that, while we can access infinity holographically within ourselves, we are still distortions of infinity and thus not infinity alone, without any qualifiers.

In other words, when I read Ra's words saying You are infinity, I interpret that to mean that we can access infinity within. But it's infinity within a limit, which is only possible if we understand that we're holographic.

I don't know if it's really possible to fully understand this without having seen Nassim's work. He explains how infinity is contained within limits. But that's not infinity, because infinity has no limits in any direction (which is what I think unity100 was trying to convey). It's infinity, yes, but it's also distorted (the limit). Sort of like an infinite line: the line is only infinite within its definition of being a line. It's not infinity. It's infinite, but first it's a line. So it's infinite within the limit of being a line. The line can access the concept of infinity in either direction, but not necessarily in all directions, unless/until which time it ceases being a line.

Likewise, we can access infinity within, while being 3D entities (or maybe 4, 5 or 6D entities, as the case may be), but at this nexus, we're still entities, and thus are infinite within that constraint.

As we evolve, eventually our grasp of infinity also evolves, and maybe instead of infinity in 2 directions it is infinity in multiple directions. But as long as we have an individual awareness as an entity, I don't see how it could be said that we are the SAME as infinity. I think Ra was trying to convey a very important point that infinity is contained in us and yes, we are the Creator. But we are still us, too. We are individuals as well. That fact isn't negated. Thus, the only reconciliation to this paradox that I can see, is that Ra meant we are infinity within the limit of our self.

I could be wrong. That's just how I see it. I understand your point and I also understand unity100's point. The very fact that we are individual entities, discussing the meaning of Ra's words, indicates that we currently have limits to our access of infinity. Thus, infinity within limits, ie. not infinity unqualified.

So, I contend that we cannot simultaneously be undistorted and "adopt the finite viewpoint" ...HOWEVER we CAN simultaneously be infinite and distorted.

What's the difference? Undistorted = infinite; adopting a finite viewpoint = distorted.

The difference is that we're not undistorted. That is the clue.

It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity. Thus all begins and ends in mystery.

Note that we contain infinity...we contain the One Infinite Creator. And yet, we are distorted. We are holographic pieces of the whole, containing a pattern of the whole, but we are not the whole.

How can we contain the whole and not be the whole? The point is there is only one, the one infinite Creator. That means that you are the one infinite Creator. You have to be; it's all there is.

Yes and no. From the Creator's viewpoint, yes, that's all there is. But from our viewpoint, currently, that's not all there is.

Of course we are the One Infinite Creator. But we're also ourselves. We have identities. We contain the whole without being the whole. I invite you to watch Nassim Haramein's lectures, which explain this visually and mathematically.

Ra said, "look into a mirror; see the Creator" and "look at another; see the Creator." They didn't say see part of the Creator or a distorted reflection of the Creator. They said see the Creator.

That's right, because every piece contains a holographic pattern of the whole. Ra said this.

The key here is that we contain the pattern of infinity...the pattern of the Creator.

Similarly, when they said "when one is enlightened are not all enlightened?" how else could all be enlightened other than if all were one and one were all?

We are all one, and one is all. There is no conflict between these concepts. We all contain one another and all of Creation. All is contained in us. But we are not at any given time aware of and expressing All.

So, as I understand it (or think I understand it), we are infinite within the limit of being entities. We aren't infinite as the One Infinite Creator is infinite...we are infinity within being ourselves, but we aren't infinity without any limits, which is what I think unity100 is referring to when he uses the term infinity alone. Only the One Infinite Creator is infinity without any limits.

The limits aren't set. They can be eradicated, which is what we're doing as we evolve. I see the process of evolving as the process of removing limits, so that our awareness of infinity increases.

This is what I think Ra was referring to. Ra was trying to encourage us to focus on the pattern of infinity within, because that is how we evolve. The infinity is there, if we look for it. But as long as we're having this conversation, that is a clue that some limits are still in place.

I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm just trying to figure it out too and just offering my thoughts as I 'think' I understand it. But again I refer everyone to Nassim. I think his work should be required for any student of the Law of One!

[Poffo]

Thanks, Poffo. I believe I followed your discussion, but I'm still not clear why a straight line describes the infinite whole. Is it that the straight line eventually becomes a circle?

Also, how does the straight line/infinite whole paradox cause galaxies and solar systems to tend toward the lenticular?

...the infinite whole paradoxically described by the straight line, as you would call it. This paradox is responsible for the shape of the various physical illusion entities you call solar systems, galaxies, and planets of revolving and tending towards the lenticular.

This is just my interpretation, I don't speak for Ra. I am Poffo.

They describe the "light of love" as having in its occurences of being (manifestations) certain characteristics (archetypal patterning), one among them being the infinite whole paradoxically described by the straight line. I mentioned already how the "revolving and tending towards the lenticular" describes circularity to me, so I'll try to merge all that together.

It is my opinion that the Logos (as the manifestation of Intelligent Infinity as Intelligent Energy) can be represented as a triangle representing 3 forces (+/-/=) and that the Logos itself represents the "=", and thus mediates between positive and negative, and this is so in all systems of duality (which including the 3rd force are actually systems of polarity). It's akin to the fulcrum of the see-saw which mediates the oscillations of the bench that sits on it. It doesn't move, but it allows the movement of the bench, and as one side is up (+) the other is down (-) and vice versa, yet the fulcrum (=) is steady in one place.

Those oscillations can be thought of as respresenting the dual sine wave motion of light, which is itself composed of electric (+) and magnetic (-) fields. A sine wave is a simple way of representing that movement between positive and negative, the crests being positive and the troughs being negative. Sine waves, as shown before, represent the movement of points around a circle.

In euclidian geometry, a line (properly a line segment) is the shortest path between any two points. The line is 1 dimensional while the point(s) are 0 dimensional. Any line can also be seen as the diameter of a circle, and in this way a cirlcle could be seen to encapsulate any two points. On a flat plane there is no such thing as a 2-gon, and therefore the triangle is the really the first possible polygon. If you consider that polygons represent archetypes (triangle = polarity, square = pairs of opposites, pentagon = phi, growth) then you can see the circle as the unifying archetypal pattern that contains/gives rise to all the others.

So, the "light of love (logos)" manifests in the occurence of a straight line because the light itself contains that fundamental polarity (+/-, electric/magnetic, crest/trough, etc), and that it describes the infinite whole which is archetypally a circle. This is also interesting in terms of wave/particle duality of the photon, in that a particle is a "point" and a wave is a "line", and when you zoom into a point it's really a circle, and a point is merely a line being viewed through one of its points.

We can also see that the octave of densities is the manfistation of the light of love, that it is the Logos spread out into its various frequency levels which in turn are represented by different colours, and in the example of the human body (as the image of Creator) the chakras (densities) are laid out in a straight line. The polarity mentioned also shows up in the density spectrum as the lower densities representing the material universe and the higher densities representing the spiritual universe.

I'll end that here as I'm starting to get fairly tangential and WAY off topic.

As far as how the "straight line/infinite whole paradox cause galaxies and solar systems to tend toward the lenticular?".....I'm not an astrophysicist and can only guess as to how that comes about, but perhaps the archetypal patterning I've highlighted may point you in a productive direction

/:idea:

[unity100]

having no end, would mean that something is infinite in regard to time, space, or anything that can expand or go into future, (or any change comparable to another change).

in that meaning, having the pattern of the infinite intelligence, and being able to expand inwards infinitely towards infinite time, would mean that one is, infinite in one's own self. however, this infinity is towards inside, one's inner world. even if this world overlaps with others. this is a state of having no end. however, it is still a qualifier. you exist, you have no end. there is something called 'you'.

for infinity, none of these would be valid concepts. 'having no end'. irrelevant, since this is also a concept that has to be in infinity. along with its counterpart, 'having an end'. no need to tell that 'you' or 'me' concepts fall very low level compared to infinity.

there is only one infinity, and it is infinite. being able to expand in that infinity towards infinite time, therefore having no end in that fashion, does not make one that infinity.

there are no mistakes in regard to this - infinity, is infinity, and it cannot 'choose' and then become limited, because all of these, have to be concepts already present within infinity, with their counterparts. letting go of either of them would mean that infinity wouldnt be able to be infinity anymore.

in regard to 'illusion', it is what we know as 'reality'. there is no different 'reality' aside from this neverending infinite 'illusion'. the only state outside of this, is, infinity. and infinity, has all states, and also, no state. its unreal, and also 'real'.

the term 'illusion' have probably derived from the earthly (or, this solar system's) philosophies and understandings' needs to state that bodily incarnations are a passing thing, yet spirit remains forever.

it is true, however, it is also wrong. even tho an incarnation may be a passing blink in the existence of an entity, it is still there. the fact that it passes and state changes does not mean that it didnt happen, it was 'unreal' (whatever unreal means, since anything that can be perceived regardless of anything, is something that exists within infinity), or it didnt have any effects. the very present you is the combination of such 'passing' 'illusory' incarnations and experiences in the first place. and the very future you, will be the sum of all that you are to go through. moreover, the 'flesh' that one is being incarnated to, is also spirit, and very probably contains innumerable future souls that are going to live in 3d, when they move through 1, 2d and eventually move to 3d. it is still intelligent energy. it exists.

if we take it from the perspective of spirit, it becomes even more basic - if one attempts to dub existence of spirit as 'illusory' and all this existence, creation, 'unreal' (whatever that is), and goes on to say that there is only infinity, that would be phenomenonally wrong. firstly, since infinity has to be comprised of infinity, it has to be comprised of ANY existing thing, even concepts or passing thoughts and then even lower level concepts that entities can perceive in this universe/octave. leave aside the fact that there are infinite amounts of concepts, existences in infinite numbers of earlier, and future octaves .... that means, since anything has to be a part of infinity, and infinity cant be infinity without being everything, anything that you perceive, are sure to be parts of that infinity. doesnt matter how you dub it, how you take it, how you name it. if you can perceive it, if you can feel or know its effects through any means, it means that it is sure to be a part of infinity.

there are infinite amounts of things/concepts we cant even perceive yet, in future octaves. there are things we dont know in infinity yet. there are things that even infinite intelligence doesnt know or experienced yet. but, we know infinity exists, and there are an infinite number of these to be seen and experienced yet. that leaves us the certainty of the fact that what we felt any effect from, in any manner, is surely something that exists, and part of infinity.

that has numerous consequences. one of the interesting ones being that, even if you saw something, a 'hallucination' (as it is dubbed in modern medicine), under the effect of a drug, totally 'unreal', it still exists. because anything perceived, has to be part of infinity. even if you perceived it differently, or wrong. if you imagined something, it exists. if you felt something, it exists. and so goes.

[βαθμιαίος]

OK. But do you agree that we are distorted?

Yes, of course.

Is illusion infinity?

Or is illusion a distortion?

What is illusion made of? Does it have substance? Or is an error in knowledge or belief?

I've avoided these questions because I'm uncomfortable answering such absolute questions. The short answer, of course, is "I don't know." But my opinion, for what it's worth, is that yes, illusion is a distortion. It's the distortion that the logoi offer to the Creator when they build what Ra calls illusory systems of natural laws in order for the Creator to know itself.

My apologies for implying that you used those terms. My interpretation (perhaps misinterpretation?) of your words was that illusion was somehow 'not real' ie. false ie. not really part of reality, maybe even separate from infinity. That is what we think of when we think of the word illusion, right? A magician's trick, showing us something not real?

Well, that's not far off from my position, but I have never referred to illusion in any pejorative way, I hope, or as separate from infinity. Indeed, my whole argument has been that we are not separate from infinity (in contrast to what I understood to be unity100's position that we are finite and separate from infinity).

I think of illusion as an exquisitely-wrought mask for infinity. It's the carefully-crafted gift that our logos is offering to the Creator so that it may know itself.

And yet, how can anything not be part of infinity? Illusion too is part of infinity.

Yes, of course, except that I might refer to it more as a mask for infinity.

How are these seeming paradoxes reconciled? How can we be infinity and yet distortions of infinity?

Ra said that the understandings they have to share begin and end in mystery. So I think it's OK if we don't resolve the paradox. But Ra also said that in their density the paradoxes are resolved and that some of us have wandered from their density, so I think it's worth the effort to attempt to resolve the paradox, remembering, of course, that we are not currently in a density of understanding. My attempt to resolve the paradox is to think of you, me, and everyone and everything else as, at the same time, the entirety of the One Creator (each of us individually, that is, not just collectively), but carefully disguised to seem to be separate, finite, and independent entities so that we may make choices, learn, grow, and come to know ourselves as our true self (the Creator).

I cannot speak for unity100, but that's not how I interpreted his words. I thought unity100 was saying that, while we can access infinity holographically within ourselves, we are still distortions of infinity and thus not infinity alone, without any qualifiers.

Well, I think that may be what he's saying now that you've joined the thread, but earlier, in response to my posting of Ra's holographic quote, he disagreed that we contained infinity.

In other words, when I read Ra's words saying You are infinity, I interpret that to mean that we can access infinity within. But it's infinity within a limit, which is only possible if we understand that we're holographic.

With respect, I think that's, to some extent, a misinterpretation. They're definitely saying that we can access infinity, but their plain words, to me at least, are also saying that we are infinity without limit. The limits that we perceive are a function of our limited viewpoint, which we have chosen. "1.5 ... This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things."

As we evolve, eventually our grasp of infinity also evolves, and maybe instead of infinity in 2 directions it is infinity in multiple directions. But as long as we have an individual awareness as an entity, I don't see how it could be said that we are the SAME as infinity. I think Ra was trying to convey a very important point that infinity is contained in us and yes, we are the Creator. But we are still us, too. We are individuals as well. That fact isn't negated. Thus, the only reconciliation to this paradox that I can see, is that Ra meant we are infinity within the limit of our self.

I suggested another reconciliation to the paradox earlier in this post. My suggestion could certainly be wrong, but I do think it's consistent with everything Ra said.

The difference is that we're not undistorted. That is the clue.

As I understand it, we are simultaneously distorted and undistorted. Our basic reality is the undifferentiated unity, but we amuse ourselves by distorting that unity in various ways at this time.

Yes and no. From the Creator's viewpoint, yes, that's all there is. But from our viewpoint, currently, that's not all there is.

I maintain that we can adopt the Creator's viewpoint, if we're lucky and disciplined. As I understand it, that's what opening violet ray is -- experiencing the mystical unity that underpins all things.

Of course we are the One Infinite Creator. But we're also ourselves. We have identities. We contain the whole without being the whole. I invite you to watch Nassim Haramein's lectures, which explain this visually and mathematically.

Is there a particular lecture you'd recommend starting with?

That's right, because every piece contains a holographic pattern of the whole. Ra said this.

The key here is that we contain the pattern of infinity...the pattern of the Creator.

They said "any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity." Each portion contains infinity, not just the pattern of infinity.

We are all one, and one is all. There is no conflict between these concepts. We all contain one another and all of Creation. All is contained in us. But we are not at any given time aware of and expressing All.

I certainly agree that we are not, at most times, aware of and expressing All, but my understanding is that we can, at times, become aware of and express All. It won't be something that we can put into words when we come back from that state, but we can reach it. "34.3 The entity which reaches intelligent infinity most often will perceive this experience as one of unspeakable profundity."

So, as I understand it (or think I understand it), we are infinite within the limit of being entities. We aren't infinite as the One Infinite Creator is infinite...we are infinity within being ourselves, but we aren't infinity without any limits, which is what I think unity100 is referring to when he uses the term infinity alone. Only the One Infinite Creator is infinity without any limits.

Actually, unity100 distinguished the One Infinite Creator from infinity: "infinite creator is not infinity," "what you call as 'creator', even itself, is an entity/concept within the infinity. the reason it is able to experience, explore, is this. it is because it isnt infinite, by being intelligent, differentiated from infinity."

The limits aren't set. They can be eradicated, which is what we're doing as we evolve. I see the process of evolving as the process of removing limits, so that our awareness of infinity increases.

I completely agree.

This is what I think Ra was referring to. Ra was trying to encourage us to focus on the pattern of infinity within, because that is how we evolve. The infinity is there, if we look for it. But as long as we're having this conversation, that is a clue that some limits are still in place.

No doubt; the point I'm trying to make is that the limits are illusory and self-imposed. The most common process of removing the limits seems to be to evolve through the densities and then rejoin the Creator in seventh density. But Ra tells us that experiences of mystical unity are possible here and now, too.

I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm just trying to figure it out too and just offering my thoughts as I 'think' I understand it. But again I refer everyone to Nassim. I think his work should be required for any student of the Law of One!

I don't know what I'm talking about either , and I can't tell you how enjoyable it is to discuss this in a non-confrontational manner with a fellow bozo.

This is just my interpretation, I don't speak for Ra. I am Poffo.

Thanks, Poffo. It's fascinating and somewhat mind-boggling stuff to think about.

[Monica]

I've avoided these questions because I'm uncomfortable answering such absolute questions. The short answer, of course, is "I don't know." But my opinion, for what it's worth, is that yes, illusion is a distortion. It's the distortion that the logoi offer to the Creator when they build what Ra calls illusory systems of natural laws in order for the Creator to know itself.

What I'm getting at here is that, my understanding of infinity is without distortion. Undifferentiated.

Thus, if we are currently existing in an illusion, which is a distortion, we are currently not infinity, given the premise that infinity is undistorted.

As we evolve, we remove the distortion. I contend that this is why Ra meant by You are infinity...Ra was referring to our ultimate destination, not our current state.

I think unity100 is comparing our current state to our ultimate destination. Our current state isn't infinity, though our ultimate destination is.

?

Indeed, my whole argument has been that we are not separate from infinity (in contrast to what I understood to be unity100's position that we are finite and separate from infinity).

I recall unity100 stating that we are finite, but did he also say we are separate from infinity? I would say that we are both finite and infinite. We are actually infinite, within a limit, which is finite...in our current state.

We can be finite without being separate. On the other hand, if we perceive ourselves as separate, then are we separate?

I think of illusion as an exquisitely-wrought mask for infinity. It's the carefully-crafted gift that our logos is offering to the Creator so that it may know itself.

That 'mask' too is a part of infinity.

And yet, how can anything not be part of infinity? Illusion too is part of infinity.

Yes, of course, except that I might refer to it more as a mask for infinity.

If infinity is ALL, then the mask is part of infinity.

But what is the 'mask' ...the illusion? We have discussed why it exists, but do we know what it is?

How are these seeming paradoxes reconciled? How can we be infinity and yet distortions of infinity?

Ra said that the understandings they have to share begin and end in mystery. So I think it's OK if we don't resolve the paradox. But Ra also said that in their density the paradoxes are resolved and that some of us have wandered from their density, so I think it's worth the effort to attempt to resolve the paradox, remembering, of course, that we are not currently in a density of understanding.

Agreed.

My attempt to resolve the paradox is to think of you, me, and everyone and everything else as, at the same time, the entirety of the One Creator (each of us individually, that is, not just collectively), but carefully disguised to seem to be separate, finite, and independent entities so that we may make choices, learn, grow, and come to know ourselves as our true self (the Creator).

I'm interested in exploring what constitutes the disguise.

I cannot speak for unity100, but that's not how I interpreted his words. I thought unity100 was saying that, while we can access infinity holographically within ourselves, we are still distortions of infinity and thus not infinity alone, without any qualifiers.

Well, I think that may be what he's saying now that you've joined the thread, but earlier, in response to my posting of Ra's holographic quote, he disagreed that we contained infinity.

I may have missed something...but what I remember is that a distinction was being made between infinity within a limit (as in an infinite line, which is infinite within the confines of being a line) and infinity, which has no limits, no definitions, no distortions. But maybe that's what I said...I'm not sure anymore who said what! I will let unity100 speak for himself.

In other words, when I read Ra's words saying You are infinity, I interpret that to mean that we can access infinity within. But it's infinity within a limit, which is only possible if we understand that we're holographic.

With respect, I think that's, to some extent, a misinterpretation. They're definitely saying that we can access infinity, but their plain words, to me at least, are also saying that we are infinity without limit. The limits that we perceive are a function of our limited viewpoint, which we have chosen. "1.5 ... This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things."

At the heart of who we are, yes. But we're not aware of our full identity in our current illusion, so the end result is that we dwell in distortion and are thus finite, in our current state.

So this is because of illusion...Regardless of the reason, the result is still the same.

I am reminded of Christians debating a passage in the Bible. Entire religious denominations have been formed over disagreement about a single word. I contend that we must consider Ra's words in their full context, and add other words to the equation.

Taken alone, the words You are infinity would appear to mean as you indicate, but what I'm proposing is that we consider those words along with other words, to flesh out their meaning. I'm proposing that these words were intended to describe our true state, without distortion, not our current, distorted, finite state.

As we evolve, eventually our grasp of infinity also evolves, and maybe instead of infinity in 2 directions it is infinity in multiple directions. But as long as we have an individual awareness as an entity, I don't see how it could be said that we are the SAME as infinity. I think Ra was trying to convey a very important point that infinity is contained in us and yes, we are the Creator. But we are still us, too. We are individuals as well. That fact isn't negated. Thus, the only reconciliation to this paradox that I can see, is that Ra meant we are infinity within the limit of our self.

I suggested another reconciliation to the paradox earlier in this post. My suggestion could certainly be wrong, but I do think it's consistent with everything Ra said.

I appreciate your suggestion, but it doesn't quite work for me...without answering the question about illusion. Illusion seems to be like the missing mass in physics...conveniently filling in the gaps but no one seems to know what it is.

I understand that we don't have an answer for it.

The difference is that we're not undistorted. That is the clue.

As I understand it, we are simultaneously distorted and undistorted. Our basic reality is the undifferentiated unity, but we amuse ourselves by distorting that unity in various ways at this time.

Agreed. The reason I am in agreement with unity100 that our current state is being expressed as finite, is that this is the perspective we are operating from.

We may indeed possess both states, but unless we are accessing the infinite state, I don't see how we can really answer the question from that state.

I maintain that we can adopt the Creator's viewpoint, if we're lucky and disciplined. As I understand it, that's what opening violet ray is -- experiencing the mystical unity that underpins all things.

Perhaps so. Or perhaps it is yet another layer of illusion. Not even Ra has plumbed the mystery.

If we do access the Creator's viewpoint, and can speak from that viewpoint, then we could speak with certainty about that which we can now only speculate.

Of course we are the One Infinite Creator. But we're also ourselves. We have identities. We contain the whole without being the whole. I invite you to watch Nassim Haramein's lectures, which explain this visually and mathematically.

Is there a particular lecture you'd recommend starting with?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPgII_4ciFU

It's a 45-part lecture. Every moment is enthralling, all the way up the perhaps the last part which deals with speculation about the religious artifacts. But all the scientific and mathematical stuff is mind-blowing and in alignment with the Law of One. You really can't skip any, as it builds upon previous concepts.

That's right, because every piece contains a holographic pattern of the whole. Ra said this.

The key here is that we contain the pattern of infinity...the pattern of the Creator.

They said "any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity." Each portion contains infinity, not just the pattern of infinity.

Ra didn't say each portion contains infinity.

Ra said each portion of any pattern contains infinity.

There is a qualifier there.

We are all one, and one is all. There is no conflict between these concepts. We all contain one another and all of Creation. All is contained in us. But we are not at any given time aware of and expressing All.

I certainly agree that we are not, at most times, aware of and expressing All, but my understanding is that we can, at times, become aware of and express All. It won't be something that we can put into words when we come back from that state, but we can reach it. "34.3 The entity which reaches intelligent infinity most often will perceive this experience as one of unspeakable profundity."

Sure. But from which perspective are we discussing? We are not in just a single state at all times.

Actually, unity100 distinguished the One Infinite Creator from infinity: "infinite creator is not infinity," "what you call as 'creator', even itself, is an entity/concept within the infinity. the reason it is able to experience, explore, is this. it is because it isnt infinite, by being intelligent, differentiated from infinity."

And I think unity100 is correct on this point. I misspoke. To correct my statement: I would say the One Infinite Creator is less distorted than we are, so closer to infinity.

This is what I think Ra was referring to. Ra was trying to encourage us to focus on the pattern of infinity within, because that is how we evolve. The infinity is there, if we look for it. But as long as we're having this conversation, that is a clue that some limits are still in place.

No doubt; the point I'm trying to make is that the limits are illusory and self-imposed. The most common process of removing the limits seems to be to evolve through the densities and then rejoin the Creator in seventh density. But Ra tells us that experiences of mystical unity are possible here and now, too.

Whether they are illusory and self-imposed does not change the fact that they exist. And as long as they exist, we dwell in a state of finiteness most of the time, except for when we access the infinite, if indeed we do access the infinite and not just another layer of illusion which appears to us to be infinite from our finite vantage point.

I don't know what I'm talking about either , and I can't tell you how enjoyable it is to discuss this in a non-confrontational manner with a fellow bozo.

Ha, agreed!

[Turtle]

having no end, would mean that something is infinite in regard to time, space, or anything that can expand or go into future, (or any change comparable to another change).

in that meaning, having the pattern of the infinite intelligence, and being able to expand inwards infinitely towards infinite time, would mean that one is, infinite in one's own self. however, this infinity is towards inside, one's inner world. even if this world overlaps with others. this is a state of having no end. however, it is still a qualifier. you exist, you have no end. there is something called 'you'.

for infinity, none of these would be valid concepts. 'having no end'. irrelevant, since this is also a concept that has to be in infinity. along with its counterpart, 'having an end'. no need to tell that 'you' or 'me' concepts fall very low level compared to infinity.

there is only one infinity, and it is infinite. being able to expand in that infinity towards infinite time, therefore having no end in that fashion, does not make one that infinity.

there are no mistakes in regard to this - infinity, is infinity, and it cannot 'choose' and then become limited, because all of these, have to be concepts already present within infinity, with their counterparts. letting go of either of them would mean that infinity wouldnt be able to be infinity anymore.

in regard to 'illusion', it is what we know as 'reality'. there is no different 'reality' aside from this neverending infinite 'illusion'. the only state outside of this, is, infinity. and infinity, has all states, and also, no state. its unreal, and also 'real'.

the term 'illusion' have probably derived from the earthly (or, this solar system's) philosophies and understandings' needs to state that bodily incarnations are a passing thing, yet spirit remains forever.

it is true, however, it is also wrong. even tho an incarnation may be a passing blink in the existence of an entity, it is still there. the fact that it passes and state changes does not mean that it didnt happen, it was 'unreal' (whatever unreal means, since anything that can be perceived regardless of anything, is something that exists within infinity), or it didnt have any effects. the very present you is the combination of such 'passing' 'illusory' incarnations and experiences in the first place. and the very future you, will be the sum of all that you are to go through. moreover, the 'flesh' that one is being incarnated to, is also spirit, and very probably contains innumerable future souls that are going to live in 3d, when they move through 1, 2d and eventually move to 3d. it is still intelligent energy. it exists.

if we take it from the perspective of spirit, it becomes even more basic - if one attempts to dub existence of spirit as 'illusory' and all this existence, creation, 'unreal' (whatever that is), and goes on to say that there is only infinity, that would be phenomenonally wrong. firstly, since infinity has to be comprised of infinity, it has to be comprised of ANY existing thing, even concepts or passing thoughts and then even lower level concepts that entities can perceive in this universe/octave. leave aside the fact that there are infinite amounts of concepts, existences in infinite numbers of earlier, and future octaves .... that means, since anything has to be a part of infinity, and infinity cant be infinity without being everything, anything that you perceive, are sure to be parts of that infinity. doesnt matter how you dub it, how you take it, how you name it. if you can perceive it, if you can feel or know its effects through any means, it means that it is sure to be a part of infinity.

there are infinite amounts of things/concepts we cant even perceive yet, in future octaves. there are things we dont know in infinity yet. there are things that even infinite intelligence doesnt know or experienced yet. but, we know infinity exists, and there are an infinite number of these to be seen and experienced yet. that leaves us the certainty of the fact that what we felt any effect from, in any manner, is surely something that exists, and part of infinity.

that has numerous consequences. one of the interesting ones being that, even if you saw something, a 'hallucination' (as it is dubbed in modern medicine), under the effect of a drug, totally 'unreal', it still exists. because anything perceived, has to be part of infinity. even if you perceived it differently, or wrong. if you imagined something, it exists. if you felt something, it exists. and so goes.

Unity100, for any further discussions you participate in on this website that regard Infinity and our relationship to it, you should just copy and paste this post you just wrote. This is the most efficient communication of your perspective on the subject as far as I'm concerned. Word.

[βαθμιαίος]

What I'm getting at here is that, my understanding of infinity is without distortion. Undifferentiated.

Thus, if we are currently existing in an illusion, which is a distortion, we are currently not infinity, given the premise that infinity is undistorted.

As we evolve, we remove the distortion. I contend that this is why Ra meant by You are infinity...Ra was referring to our ultimate destination, not our current state.

I think unity100 is comparing our current state to our ultimate destination. Our current state isn't infinity, though our ultimate destination is.

Ra said "you are infinity," not "you will be infinity." Infinity is our current state. It's the only state there is. We don't perceive it to be our current state because we have chosen to limit our perception. That limited perception is the illusion.

But what is the 'mask' ...the illusion? We have discussed why it exists, but do we know what it is?

The mask is the "illusory system of natural laws" that our logos has created for Infinite Intelligence to explore itself.

Taken alone, the words You are infinity would appear to mean as you indicate, but what I'm proposing is that we consider those words along with other words, to flesh out their meaning. I'm proposing that these words were intended to describe our true state, without distortion, not our current, distorted, finite state.

Do you mean other words from Ra? If so, please provide them. I have provided many, many quotes from Ra in support of my position in this thread.

Agreed. The reason I am in agreement with unity100 that our current state is being expressed as finite, is that this is the perspective we are operating from.

We may indeed possess both states, but unless we are accessing the infinite state, I don't see how we can really answer the question from that state.

My argument is that we can choose which state we want to answer the question from.

Perhaps so. Or perhaps it is yet another layer of illusion. Not even Ra has plumbed the mystery.

If we do access the Creator's viewpoint, and can speak from that viewpoint, then we could speak with certainty about that which we can now only speculate.

Ra says that opening violet ray is contact with intelligent infinity. It's not illusory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPgII_4ciFU

Thanks.

Ra said each portion of any pattern contains infinity.

Right, it contains infinity. Before you said "contain the pattern of infinity." What they actually said is "contains infinity."

Sure. But from which perspective are we discussing? We are not in just a single state at all times.

That's exactly the issue. I maintain that we can choose the infinite perspective. It's available to us through faith and will. My understanding of unity100's position is we are limited to the finite perspective.

And I think unity100 is correct on this point. I misspoke. To correct my statement: I would say the One Infinite Creator is less distorted than we are, so closer to infinity.

That's fine, but it does disagree with Ra, who said "the One Creator which is infinity."

[Monica]

What I'm getting at here is that, my understanding of infinity is without distortion. Undifferentiated.

Thus, if we are currently existing in an illusion, which is a distortion, we are currently not infinity, given the premise that infinity is undistorted.

As we evolve, we remove the distortion. I contend that this is why Ra meant by You are infinity...Ra was referring to our ultimate destination, not our current state.

I think unity100 is comparing our current state to our ultimate destination. Our current state isn't infinity, though our ultimate destination is.

Ra said "you are infinity," not "you will be infinity." Infinity is our current state.

Of course. Ra exists outside of linear time, so to Ra, our true state is what is seen. So Ra is trying to show us our true state. If we were seeing our true state, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

It's the only state there is.

I disagree with this, because I think whatever state we perceive is also valid. If we are currently perceiving finiteness, that too has its place.

If we perceive it, it is real.

This reminds me of the Christian Science philosophy, which states that everything is in a state of perfection, and anything less than that is a lie. I have an acquaintance who is a Christian Science practitioner and also an alternative health practitioner. She tells her clients that if they are sick (with cancer or whatever) that is because they don't have enough faith and are believing the 'lie.' Her entire counsel is to convince them to become strong enough in their faith that they are perfect in every way: perfect health, perfect relationships, perfect prosperity, etc.

No regard is given to the purpose of catalyst. Anything undesirable is denied.

To me, this seems to negate the value of catalyst and experience. I think she is doing these people a disservice. Many of them die from their illness in a state of guilt because they didn't believe strongly enough.

This discussion has reminded me of that because our current state of finiteness seems to be denied. My understanding of the arguments put forth is that the illusion is somehow not valid, and anything perceived inside the illusion doesn't even exist.

And yet, I think to say that, would be to negate the value of it. Our Logos chose to design this illusion for a reason. Who are we to say what is in the illusion doesn't exist?

We currently perceive from within the illusion; therefore it exists. Ra states that it exists. The fact that it is an illusion doesn't mean it isn't real.

Infinity contains everything; hence, everything is real, including that which is perceived inside the illusion. All is contained within infinity, and infinity is also contained within the illusion. The difference, as I perceive it, is that infinity has no limits, but infinity within an illusion has the limits of the illusion.

As Nassim states, there is 'infinitely large' and 'infinitely small' indicating outer infinity and inner infinity. Both are valid. But infinity, with no qualifiers, includes all.

Even Ra's statement, "You are infinity" contained an implicit qualifier: the word you. By its very nature, by being a definition, it is a qualifier. Who are we? That is the quest.

Finiteness isn't necessarily bad, something to be discarded. Here we are having a wonderful, respectful, stimulating discussion. We couldn't be doing that were it not for finiteness. Right now I am appreciating you, unity100, and everyone else who has participating in this discussion...marveling at your thought process.

This is finiteness in action! If finiteness weren't involved here, then I wouldn't be able to perceive the uniqueness of your thoughts, of your being, nor you of mine.

Finiteness is a piece of the puzzle. It has its place. It too is part of infinity.

There is no conflict. We can be both infinite and finite. Ra stated we are infinite. Ra also stated we have distortion, which I interpret to mean finiteness. There is not only 1 state; there are infinite states, of finiteness. But only ONE infinity.

I am reminded of numerology, which states that zero is the undifferentiated. This is the number of The Fool in Tarot. It is nothing and yet everything. It is the state at which we begin our journey, and the state we ultimately return to. The Fool is the beginner on the path of Tarot, and yet the most advanced. That seems to be a paradox but it is actually quite profound.

In numerology, the zero then manifests, which is the number ONE. The number ONE is the number of focusing infinity into intelligent infinity...it is the creative force. Thus, the beginning of distortion.

Then is TWO, which is polarity.

I don't know the exact correspondence, but I know that numerology, Tarot, astrology, Kabalah etc. all overlap. The archetypes are expressed in all these systems. All are describing the intricacies of distortion. All are contained in the nothingness/ALL which are the same...infinity.

We are The Fool. But we are also all the other archetypes along the way. All are valid. Unless we can claim to be in a constant state of The Fool archetype, I don't think we can claim to be in a perfect state of infinity at all times. We traverse the Tree of Life, corresponding to the Tarot archetypes, astrology and numerology. This is the sacred path and it embraces both infinity and finiteness. I am suggesting that we honor our finiteness as well as our infinite nature.

We don't perceive it to be our current state because we have chosen to limit our perception. That limited perception is the illusion.

If we have limited our perception, for whatever reason, then we have essentially created another state. This other state, of finiteness, has its purpose too. I don't think we should negate it just because it is illusory and temporary. If it didn't have a purpose, we wouldn't be in it.

But what is the 'mask' ...the illusion? We have discussed why it exists, but do we know what it is?

The mask is the "illusory system of natural laws" that our logos has created for Infinite Intelligence to explore itself.

It exists, and it creates an environment for us to experience finiteness. Thus, that is also a valid state. One is not mutually exclusive of the other.

Taken alone, the words You are infinity would appear to mean as you indicate, but what I'm proposing is that we consider those words along with other words, to flesh out their meaning. I'm proposing that these words were intended to describe our true state, without distortion, not our current, distorted, finite state.

Do you mean other words from Ra? If so, please provide them. I have provided many, many quotes from Ra in support of my position in this thread.

All the words about distortion and illusion, some of which I too provided.

Agreed. The reason I am in agreement with unity100 that our current state is being expressed as finite, is that this is the perspective we are operating from.

We may indeed possess both states, but unless we are accessing the infinite state, I don't see how we can really answer the question from that state.

My argument is that we can choose which state we want to answer the question from.

I agree! But I don't see anyone doing that right now!

Perhaps so. Or perhaps it is yet another layer of illusion. Not even Ra has plumbed the mystery.

If we do access the Creator's viewpoint, and can speak from that viewpoint, then we could speak with certainty about that which we can now only speculate.

Ra says that opening violet ray is contact with intelligent infinity. It's not illusory.

OK. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that, even Ra states that there are mysteries even they cannot plumb. Maybe they aren't illusory, but they are certainly mysterious, so that implies some sort of, perhaps more subtle, mask in the higher octaves as well.

Ra said each portion of any pattern contains infinity.

Right, it contains infinity. Before you said "contain the pattern of infinity." What they actually said is "contains infinity."

What are you referring to by 'it'?

Yes, I did say that, based on the above quote from Ra.

You seem to be leaving out the prepositional phrase of any portion. This is important. It is a qualifier.

To say "any portion of anything" is not the same as saying, for example, "any portion of any apple."

Ra didn't say any portion contains infinity. Ra said any portion of any pattern contains infinity.

This is another of the quotes that I am suggesting we take into consideration, and then consider the sum total of all the quotes, rather than just a single quote.

Sure. But from which perspective are we discussing? We are not in just a single state at all times.

That's exactly the issue. I maintain that we can choose the infinite perspective. It's available to us through faith and will. My understanding of unity100's position is we are limited to the finite perspective.

I agree that it is available to us. I also agree with unity100 that no one in this discussion, at this point of time, is offering that perspective.

In all fairness, my interpretation of unity100's position is not that we are limited to finiteness, but that we are currently expressing the limitation of finiteness. Again, I don't want to speak for him, but saying that we are currently expressing finiteness is not the same as saying we are limited to finiteness. Although, I would add that, as long as we have identity, we have distortion, and thus some degree of finiteness.

Thus, I would agree with unity100 (if that is indeed what he meant) that, as long as we are differentiated, there is the finiteness of that differentiation. However, there is infinity within that finiteness.

Perhaps (unity100, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you) what he meant was that, as long as we are entities, we are limited to the finiteness of being entities. I would agree with this. As long as we are entities, we aren't infinity, in its whole, undistorted form, without any qualifiers. Being an entity is a qualifier and a limit of finiteness.

I don't see this as an issue, though. We can experience infinity from within our selves, and that is the same pattern as the infinite whole, because we are holographic. I really don't see a conflict. I am happy and content to be a holographic pattern of the whole. I would not claim to be the whole, although I understand that the whole is contained within me, and I in it.

And I think unity100 is correct on this point. I misspoke. To correct my statement: I would say the One Infinite Creator is less distorted than we are, so closer to infinity.

That's fine, but it does disagree with Ra, who said "the One Creator which is infinity."

The One Creator is infinity. We are infinity. And yet, Ra provided other quotes that showed a distinction between the 2, and other quotes that showed a distinction between infinity and distortion. All of those quotes must be taken together, not one by itself.

Thank for you the stimulating and respectful discussion! This is fun!

Note: Post has been edited.

---

:exclamation::exclamation::exclamation::exclamation::exclamation::exclamation::exclamation:

I would like to direct everyone to this thread's sister thread, where the discussion of infinity continues:

Strictly Law of One > Biased view of STS...and INFINITY

Beginning with post 48, the thread takes a turn into discussion of infinity. Normally, I would merge the threads, but the discussion goes into such deep areas, as well as continuing its own topic, that we'd lose cohesiveness if I did that. But I invite everyone to read that thread too, as many contributing points are made there.

[Turtle]

Book 2, Session 27

Questioner: Would you define the word intelligent in the context of intelligent infinity?

((MY SIDE NOTE: This bears repeating. Ra is describing what the word intelligent means in the context of of the term "intelligent infinity". I state this because I saw it as a potential for further confusion if not highlighted))

Ra: I am Ra. We shall address the entire spectrum of this question before defining as requested. Your language, using vibrational sound complexes, can be at best an approximation of that which is closer to an understanding, if you will, of the nature of conscious thought. Perceptions are not the same as sound vibration complexes and the attempt to define will therefore be a frustrating one for you, although we are happy to aid you within the limits of your sound vibration complexes. To define intelligent apart from infinity is difficult, for these two vibration complexes equal one concept. It is much like attempting to divide your sound vibration concept, faith, into two parts. We shall attempt to aid you however.

Questioner: It is not necessary to divide it. The definition of intelligent infinity is sufficient. Could you define that please?

Ra: I am Ra. This is exponentially simpler and less confusing. There is unity. This unity is all that there is. This unity has a potential and kinetic. The potential is intelligent infinity. Tapping this potential will yield work. This work has been called by us, intelligent energy. The nature of this work is dependent upon the particular distortion of free will which in turn is the nature of a particular intelligent energy of kinetic focus of the potential of unity or that which is all.

Infinite Creator then, is neither Intelligent Infinity (aka Infinity if you prefer), and is not Intelligent Energy....but rather the conscious aware aspect of Infinity.

The "first" distortion of Infinity is free will, or the law of confusion. You do not have Infinite Creator without the law of free will/confusion. You do not have experience of existence itself without the primary distortion of Infinity.

I will try to paint with words how I visualize all of this....

Infinity simply is all there is. WITHIN Infinity, you have an Infinite Creator, creating infinite dimensions/densities for less aware portions of Infinity to experience. For to experience anything at all, you must BECOME the concept of the experiencer who is truly immersed in the reality/illusion that Infinite Creator creates...Reality to you because you experience it. Illusion to Infinite Creator because IT DOES NOT experience what you do....it learns from you, and watches you/itself experience the Illusion as Reality.

I hope this serves to further clarify the discussion, at least in terms of what Ra is actually saying.

[unity100]

infinity is not just 'all that there is'. the very concept that 'all that there is' tells about existence, also includes concepts like 'all', 'one', 'many', 'being' in implied fashion. these are just elements within infinity. and even being 'all that there is' is just another concept as a part of infinity. there is the concept that 'all there isnt' in infinity also, and infinite amount of variations and opposites of these.

.........................

had anything been able to 'contain all infinity', and 'be infinity', the negatives wouldnt need to revert to positive path in early 6d. they would be able to express entire existence (and what is beyond existence) within their own selves, and therefore manifest entire infinity as themselves, and suck every existing thing into their own being and continue on their path.

yet, they cant. they have to revert to positive path. because, finite can not contain infinite, even if that finite is set to grow forever towards eternity. it will not be able to contain or express infinity at any given point.

therefore, just like all the other finites, negatives also revert to positive path, and start integrating with infinite number of finites, in order to continue towards infinity.

[Turtle]

infinity is not just 'all that there is'. the very concept that 'all that there is' tells about existence, also includes concepts like 'all', 'one', 'many', 'being' in implied fashion. these are just elements within infinity. and even being 'all that there is' is just another concept as a part of infinity. there is the concept that 'all there isnt' in infinity also, and infinite amount of variations and opposites of these.

I agree and will add a layer to this.

Infinity is unrestricted infinitely in all ways, by all concepts we could ever understand or communicate. Do we agree on this?

If we do, then it is self-defeating to agree on this. We have just agreed on a concept. A concept, no matter how infinite, is still a concept, which is not Infinity. All of our words and thoughts are approximations of understanding.

And we are not just approximating understanding of Infinity here...we are further distorting the effort by trying to communicate such approximations of understanding to other beings (you, I, others, etc.) on these forums.

[Monica]

infinity is not just 'all that there is'. the very concept that 'all that there is' tells about existence, also includes concepts like 'all', 'one', 'many', 'being' in implied fashion. these are just elements within infinity. and even being 'all that there is' is just another concept as a part of infinity. there is the concept that 'all there isnt' in infinity also, and infinite amount of variations and opposites of these.

Agreed.

had anything been able to 'contain all infinity', and 'be infinity', the negatives wouldnt need to revert to positive path in early 6d. they would be able to express entire existence (and what is beyond existence) within their own selves, and therefore manifest entire infinity as themselves, and suck every existing thing into their own being and continue on their path.

yet, they cant. they have to revert to positive path. because, finite can not contain infinite, even if that finite is set to grow forever towards eternity. it will not be able to contain or express infinity at any given point.

This is essentially what I was saying...there continues to be a finiteness as long as we have any sort of distortion whatsoever.

However, I disagree that finite cannot contain infinite. In the sense that everything is mirrored to us, everything is contained in us, and we all affect one another. This is the nature of the holographic UniVerse.

It can be illustrated mathematically that finite does indeed contain infinite. However, that infinite is still within the limits of the finite...and thus is not infinity unqualified.

If you mean that the finite cannot contain the whole, then I would agree in the sense that yes, the finite can contain the pattern of the whole, but not the whole, since it can never be a full expression of the whole as long as it's still finite, ie. has any identity whatsoever.

[Turtle]

Haha...I just got to the next session, and this excerpt is PERFECT....damn. I am officially done participating on any and all threads concerning Infinity because of this excerpt. Enjoy!

Book 2, Session 28

Questioner: I may be backtracking a little today because I think that possibly we are at the most important part of what we are doing in trying to make it apparent how everything is one, how it comes from one intelligent infinity. This is difficult, so please bear with my errors in questioning. The concept that I have right now of the process, using both what you have told me and some of Dewey Larson’s material having to do with the physics of the process, is that intelligent infinity expands outward from all locations everywhere. It expands outward uniformly like the surface of a bubble or a balloon expanding outward from every point everywhere. It expands outward at what is called unit velocity or the velocity of light. This is Larson’s idea of the progression of what he calls space/time. Is this concept correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This concept is incorrect as is any concept of the one intelligent infinity. This concept is correct in the context of one particular Logos, or Love, or focus of this Creator which has chosen Its, shall we say, natural laws and ways of expressing them mathematically and otherwise. The one undifferentiated intelligent infinity, unpolarized, full and whole, is the macrocosm of the mystery-clad being. We are messengers of the Law of One. Unity, at this approximation of understanding, cannot be specified by any physics but only become activated or potentiated intelligent infinity due to the catalyst of free will. This may be difficult to accept. However, the understandings we have to share begin and end in mystery.

As was my suspicion all along...we can only hope to be correct in our understanding of Infinity, in relation to some other concept as a reference. We can accurately tell of Infinity, relative to some other concept. Our understanding changes completely once the context of a train of thought or line of communication touches the concept of Infinity. No wonder the Infinite Creator is infinitely curious!

[unity100]

I agree and will add a layer to this.

Infinity is unrestricted infinitely in all ways, by all concepts we could ever understand or communicate. Do we agree on this?

If we do, then it is self-defeating to agree on this. We have just agreed on a concept. A concept, no matter how infinite, is still a concept, which is not Infinity. All of our words and thoughts are approximations of understanding.

And we are not just approximating understanding of Infinity here...we are further distorting the effort by trying to communicate such approximations of understanding to other beings (you, I, others, etc.) on these forums.

the best way to communicate infinity is silence. undistortion, nothing happening.

however, it would need an infinite amount of time to reach that state.

[Monica]

*raises hand*

Here's my interpretation, as imperfect as it may be:

Wow, that looks like an intense interpretation, and I appreciate it! I've been so wrapped up in following the other line of thought that I haven't yet taken the time to read your whole post, but I hope to do that later today!

[Etude in B Minor]

"All there is" need not be infinite (in a mathematical sense!) so it is wrong to make the definition "Infinity is simply all there is". Rather, you could postulate that "all there is, is infinite".

As I recall from reading the Ra material, the "negatives" have to turn to the positive, not in order to reach intelligent infinity (which they can do by opening the violet ray, just as the positives) but because of an increasingly burdensome spiritual entropy (which I take to be akin to trying to have a conversation in a party where more and more people keep arriving and talking loudly).

It is my belief that we (positives and negatives alike) are not limited in any way (in the sense of the infinite becoming finite) but that the veil just makes it seem this way. The word "we" here is part of the problem - there is no we, but a matter of definition of some subset of infinity. If we could see past the veil "we" would realize that there is no "we" and the apparent finiteness (in Unity's sense) is really just a part of the infinity that "we" (qua "I am") are. It doesn't take an infinite time to reach this, as would be expected of a finite system growing, accreting, towards infinity. Rather, it can happens in the blink of an eye that one can realize their infinite nature.

[βαθμιαίος]

This discussion has reminded me of that because our current state of finiteness seems to be denied. My understanding of the arguments put forth is that the illusion is somehow not valid, and anything perceived inside the illusion doesn't even exist.

With respect, I think you're arguing with your Christian Science practitioner acquaintance more than with me. I stated that the illusion is an exquisitely wrought gift that the logoi have offered to the Creator. I am in no way saying it's invalid or non-existent. I am saying that it's a mask for infinity. That doesn't mean it's bad. Its whole purpose is to allow us to learn, change, and grow, and that's a good thing.

It reminds me of how people are often put off by Ra's use of the term distortion. To Ra, distortion is not necessarily a bad thing, but people hear the word and think it must be. In Ra's terms, distortion is any movement away from undistorted unity. You can have a distortion towards love, strength, wisdom, etc.

Similary, as I understand it, illusion is a technical term that Ra uses to refer to any creation, whether it be galaxy, star, solar system, planet, third-density reality, etc. They're all forms that have been created to allow infinity to experience limits. It doesn't denigrate those forms to point out that they were created for infinity to experience itself.

Have you ever read The Cosmic Serpent by Jeremy Narby? The author describes how he takes ayahuasca and has a vision of immense snakes forming and reforming themselves into various shapes and bodies. He gets the idea that the snakes are DNA and the forming and reforming are how evolution occurs: DNA chooses a new form for itself. This is similar to what I'm trying to describe about how infinity forms and reforms itself into different illusory systems of natural laws.

Infinity contains everything; hence, everything is real, including that which is perceived inside the illusion. All is contained within infinity, and infinity is also contained within the illusion. The difference, as I perceive it, is that infinity has no limits, but infinity within an illusion has the limits of the illusion.

Right, but the limits are illusory. Ra says that we can drop them if we reach violet ray. Most who reach violet ray don't choose to because, as you and I have both said, the illusion is valuable, but it is possible.

Even Ra's statement, "You are infinity" contained an implicit qualifier: the word you. By its very nature, by being a definition, it is a qualifier. Who are we? That is the quest.

Exactly. That's the whole point. Who are we?

There is no conflict. We can be both infinite and finite. Ra stated we are infinite. Ra also stated we have distortion, which I interpret to mean finiteness. There is not only 1 state; there are infinite states, of finiteness. But only ONE infinity.

True. Ra says the hallmark of an infinite creator is variety. But they also encourage us to focus on the infinity rather than on the finity: "26.32 Why then be concerned with the grass that blooms, withers and dies in its season only to grow once again due to the infinite love and light of the One Creator? This is the message we bring. Each entity is only superficially that which blooms and dies. In the deeper sense there is no end to beingness."

We are The Fool. But we are also all the other archetypes along the way. All are valid. Unless we can claim to be in a constant state of The Fool archetype, I don't think we can claim to be in a perfect state of infinity at all times. We traverse the Tree of Life, corresponding to the Tarot archetypes, astrology and numerology. This is the sacred path and it embraces both infinity and finiteness. I am suggesting that we honor our finiteness as well as our infinite nature.

Totally agree.

If we have limited our perception, for whatever reason, then we have essentially created another state. This other state, of finiteness, has its purpose too. I don't think we should negate it just because it is illusory and temporary. If it didn't have a purpose, we wouldn't be in it.

Right. That's what I've been saying throughout this thread. I went back and re-read the posts at the time of my initial involvement in this thread. The discussion went like this:

unity100: its not they chose and limited themselves to various manifestations and 'remembering'

βαθμιαίος: If I understand this quote (1.5) correctly, that's exactly what they did.

unity100: infinity can never be finity. because, if it could, it means it wasnt infinity from the start.

This last quote from unity100 is where I think he comes oh, so close to understanding what Ra's getting at but then goes off-road. It's true that infinity can't be finity. That's the point of the illusory mask. Infinity can't be other than what it is, but it can limit its viewpoint, and as you and I have both pointed out, it does that for very good reasons indeed.

I agree! But I don't see anyone doing that right now!

Actually, I think we're all trying to stretch our minds to incorporate the Creator's viewpoint as we discuss infinity. Of course, we're not necessarily succeeding, but we're certainly trying.

Ra didn't say any portion contains infinity. Ra said any portion of any pattern contains infinity.

They actually said "any portion of any density or illusory pattern ... contains the One Creator which is infinity." It's ironic that you keep using this quote to explain things to me, because I've used it several times to try to explain the concept of a holographic universe to unity100.

Here's another quote on the same topic, "the unity of the Creator exists within the smallest portion of any material created by Love, much less in a self-aware being."

This is another of the quotes that I am suggesting we take into consideration, and then consider the sum total of all the quotes, rather than just a single quote.

I totally agree. I really think my position is what Ra was trying to articulate. I could be hopelessly wrong, which is why I asked before for other quotes that disagreed with my position. I don't think unity100 disagrees that I'm saying what Ra said; I think he just thinks Ra was wrong.

I agree that it is available to us. I also agree with unity100 that no one in this discussion, at this point of time, is offering that perspective.

You seem to have gotten the idea that I think I'm undistorted and infinite, or something. I assure you that's not the case! The veil is firmly in place for me, too.

I don't see this as an issue, though. We can experience infinity from within our selves, and that is the same pattern as the infinite whole, because we are holographic. I really don't see a conflict. I am happy and content to be a holographic pattern of the whole. I would not claim to be the whole, although I understand that the whole is contained within me, and I in it.

I think that's an admirable attitude and it's really not very far from my own, although I do try, from time to time in meditation, to be the whole, which involves, as you have pointed out, releasing our identity, or as Ra calls it, the dissolution into unity.

The One Creator is infinity. We are infinity. And yet, Ra provided other quotes that showed a distinction between the 2, and other quotes that showed a distinction between infinity and distortion. All of those quotes must be taken together, not one by itself.

I again encourage you to dig those other quotes up and post them here if they haven't already been posted.

Thank for you the stimulating and respectful discussion! This is fun!

To be honest, it's much more enjoyable now that you and others have joined the thread. It felt more like a battle before.

[Experience You]

I loved reading others points of view, even if it is "pointless" to define the undefinable it still is a expression of the same whole we reach towards.

We are at all moments expressing that, no matter what is happening. So be happy ;D

It is my understanding that all of this is self imposed and that we/i are right now the infinite, it is a mystery that i so much love and cherish.
We sometimes tend to think there is something wrong with some aspects of existence, because they are ebbed in suffering, i do like more easy and good feelings then bad ones, but that does not invalidate their value.

Trough the pattern that is me and you at this moment infinite experience itself, the magic is happening. The mystery is NOW.

Great perspectives abound, variety is preserved. And so is unity. And so is the unknowable.

Love E

[Monica]

With respect, I think you're arguing with your Christian Science practitioner acquaintance more than with me. I stated that the illusion is an exquisitely wrought gift that the logoi have offered to the Creator. I am in no way saying it's invalid or non-existent. I am saying that it's a mask for infinity.

It's difficult enough to communicate clearly, and even more difficult to communicate via the written word, and then we have compounding this difficulty, the complexity of our subject.

I apologize for any misunderstanding! To clarify, what I found similar in your arguments was not so much a lack of validity, but a lack of inclusion. Though I do appreciate your clarification!

When I hear the words: illusion is a mask for infinity that seems to me to be suggesting that it is somehow not part of infinity. This is how I perceived those words, though I realize now that's not what you meant.

I was trying to distinguish the differentiated (distortion) from the undifferentiated. It just seems to me that we are running in circles, continuing to try to define that which cannot be defined.

Similary, as I understand it, illusion is a technical term that Ra uses to refer to any creation, whether it be galaxy, star, solar system, planet, third-density reality, etc. They're all forms that have been created to allow infinity to experience limits. It doesn't denigrate those forms to point out that they were created for infinity to experience itself.

Again, thank you for the clarification. I still contend that, as long as we are existing in the illusion, we experience infinity within the limits of the illusion. That doesn't make us any less infinite. As Nassim illustrates mathematically, infinity does exist within limits. I was attempting to distinguish infinity within limits from infinity, unqualified.

Have you ever read The Cosmic Serpent by Jeremy Narby? The author describes how he takes ayahuasca and has a vision of immense snakes forming and reforming themselves into various shapes and bodies. He gets the idea that the snakes are DNA and the forming and reforming are how evolution occurs: DNA chooses a new form for itself.

I've never read that. Sounds interesting!

This is similar to what I'm trying to describe about how infinity forms and reforms itself into different illusory systems of natural laws.

I'm probably repeating myself now. What I understood from unity100, and the part I agree with him on, was that any form whatsoever indicates a limitation of some sort.

Infinity contains everything; hence, everything is real, including that which is perceived inside the illusion. All is contained within infinity, and infinity is also contained within the illusion. The difference, as I perceive it, is that infinity has no limits, but infinity within an illusion has the limits of the illusion.

Right, but the limits are illusory. Ra says that we can drop them if we reach violet ray. Most who reach violet ray don't choose to because, as you and I have both said, the illusion is valuable, but it is possible.

Here is the part that reminded me of Christian Science. When you say, but the limits are illusory that seemed to imply the limits aren't real, or at least didn't get in the way of our infinity, which reminded me of the Christian Scientists saying the illness (catalyst) wasn't real.

The point I'm trying to make is that illusion, too, is real. Illusion is that which creates the limits. So unless we're residing in violet ray all the time, we really aren't infinite, although Ra said we are infinite, which I interpreted as encouragement for us to seek out that potential for infinity that is within us, rather than a concrete statement about our present state of awareness, which clearly isn't violet-ray all the time, so therefore isn't infinity. (sorry for the run-on sentence, but it reflects my run-on thoughts in this case!)

Respectfully, and I'm just trying to understand you here so I'm offering the feedback of how I'm interpreting your words, your words seem to imply to me that because it's illusion, it's not really a limit.

My contention is that the illusion itself IS the limit! It is no less real because it is illusion.

My interpretation of Ra's use of the word illusion is that it indicates a skewing, a distorting, of that which is real. That distortion might be an amplification of certain aspects, to the exclusion of other aspects, such as we might find in a fun-house mirror. A fun-house mirror doesn't show us what isn't really there; it just distorts what is really there.

When we cast aside the illusion (in meditation or when we leave this reality), we see our unity/infinity clearly, whereas we can't see it from within the illusion.

I think the words that don't resonate with me are "but it's illusion" which seems to imply something outside of infinity, when they are used in the context of describing infinity still existing within illusion, as though illusion didn't get in the way of accessing or expressing infinity.

Not sure if I'm making sense here...

Even Ra's statement, "You are infinity" contained an implicit qualifier: the word you. By its very nature, by being a definition, it is a qualifier. Who are we? That is the quest.

Exactly. That's the whole point. Who are we?

OK, so then do you agree that, 'we' having identity presents a qualifier, and therefore a distortion, and therefore a limit? (as long as we identify with ourselves as self.)

There is no conflict. We can be both infinite and finite. Ra stated we are infinite. Ra also stated we have distortion, which I interpret to mean finiteness. There is not only 1 state; there are infinite states, of finiteness. But only ONE infinity.

True. Ra says the hallmark of an infinite creator is variety. But they also encourage us to focus on the infinity rather than on the finity: "26.32 Why then be concerned with the grass that blooms, withers and dies in its season only to grow once again due to the infinite love and light of the One Creator? This is the message we bring. Each entity is only superficially that which blooms and dies. In the deeper sense there is no end to beingness."

I completely agree. However, we are trying to define infinity, and the entire discussion seems to be about whether the 'infinity' contained in us as entities is the same as the undifferentiated whole.

We are The Fool. But we are also all the other archetypes along the way.

Totally agree.

If we have limited our perception, for whatever reason, then we have essentially created another state. This other state, of finiteness, has its purpose too. I don't think we should negate it just because it is illusory and temporary. If it didn't have a purpose, we wouldn't be in it.

Right. That's what I've been saying throughout this thread. I went back and re-read the posts at the time of my initial involvement in this thread. The discussion went like this:

unity100: its not they chose and limited themselves to various manifestations and 'remembering'

βαθμιαίος: If I understand this quote (1.5) correctly, that's exactly what they did.

unity100: infinity can never be finity. because, if it could, it means it wasnt infinity from the start.

This last quote from unity100 is where I think he comes oh, so close to understanding what Ra's getting at but then goes off-road. It's true that infinity can't be finity. That's the point of the illusory mask. Infinity can't be other than what it is, but it can limit its viewpoint, and as you and I have both pointed out, it does that for very good reasons indeed.

My understanding from unity100 is that he is trying to make the point that the undifferentiated, undistorted infinity cannot be defined or contained, and thus, any attempts to even discuss it, are about something else (what I would call infinity within the limits of finity) rather than about infinity.

I support unity100's distinction, by making the point that when Ra stated You are infinity the word 'you' provided a qualifier.

I'm not sure whether unity100 agrees that infinity is contained within limits, so I won't speak for him here. But I think I can safely say that unity100 was referring to the undistorted infinity, and I agree with him on that point.

I agree! But I don't see anyone doing that right now!

Actually, I think we're all trying to stretch our minds to incorporate the Creator's viewpoint as we discuss infinity. Of course, we're not necessarily succeeding, but we're certainly trying.

Ra didn't say any portion contains infinity. Ra said any portion of any pattern contains infinity.

They actually said "any portion of any density or illusory pattern ... contains the One Creator which is infinity." It's ironic that you keep using this quote to explain things to me, because I've used it several times to try to explain the concept of a holographic universe to unity100.

I saw that, and I agree that it's a good quote to explain the holographic nature. Although, and sorry if I seem a like a cheerleader for Nassim Haramein, but honestly, his lectures illustrates this point so beautifully.

So I think we agree on the holographic part, and that this quote explains it.

I do still respectfully contend that there is another layer of meaning in this quote, and it is found by paying attention to the prepositional phrase contained therein.

Here's another quote on the same topic, "the unity of the Creator exists within the smallest portion of any material created by Love, much less in a self-aware being."['quote]

Agreed.

[quote='Bring4th_Monica' pid='19222' dateline='1283703777']
This is another of the quotes that I am suggesting we take into consideration, and then consider the sum total of all the quotes, rather than just a single quote.

I totally agree. I really think my position is what Ra was trying to articulate. I could be hopelessly wrong, which is why I asked before for other quotes that disagreed with my position. I don't think unity100 disagrees that I'm saying what Ra said; I think he just thinks Ra was wrong.

We're like the Christians trying to understand the Bible...we're all trying to understand the Law of One, but it's questionable whether any of us can be sure that our understanding is what Ra intended. As soon as we think we understand it, we might run the risk of closing ourselves to true understanding. I find new nuggets of understanding every time I re-read the books, and every time I discuss with others, such as now.

I agree that it is available to us. I also agree with unity100 that no one in this discussion, at this point of time, is offering that perspective.

You seem to have gotten the idea that I think I'm undistorted and infinite, or something. I assure you that's not the case! The veil is firmly in place for me, too.

That is precisely my point! And, I think unity100's as well. The point that we are in agreement on, about distinguishing the truly undistorted and infinite.

I again encourage you to dig those other quotes up and post them here if they haven't already been posted.

Well, I already did post some, and refer to them again.

Thank for you the stimulating and respectful discussion! This is fun!

To be honest, it's much more enjoyable now that you and others have joined the thread. It felt more like a battle before.

Thank you!

It can feel like a battle when there is disagreement, but I wonder how much of that is from disagreement, and how much is because we are attached to our own interpretations/viewpoints. Part of this catalyst is to learn from the viewpoints of others, instead of trying to get them to agree with us. Then it can feel like a party instead of a battle.

[Ali Quadir]

I'm probably repeating myself now. What I understood from unity100, and the part I agree with him on, was that any form whatsoever indicates a limitation of some sort.

I realize that it is but a small gem in a treasure chest I'm picking up here. I've been trying to figure out a bridge between the two positions.

Would you say we can make the analogy with a sheet of paper? Infinity there being the infinite amount of things we can put on the paper. Then if you say it's a paper with a star on it. Then of all the infinite amount of things we used to be able to put on the paper, we now only have an infinite amount of things that happen to all be stars. So while there still is an infinite amount of freedom. There is no longer a totality of freedom the possible forms are together no longer infinity in Ra's usage of the term. Some things like a picture of a cat are no longer possible, unless of course it's a particularly starry cat..

If you agree. Then what would you say the state of the cat is if you define the paper as being a paper with a star on it? Is it's state now somehow changed or separated from the paper? Or is its state just as defined by the form we impose on the paper as the star was? Except maybe in the negative. "Is in potential here" versus "Is not in potential here"...

And if you disagree, can you try to describe in the analogy of the paper how you think it is? Or explain why the analogy fails?

[Monica]

I realize that it is but a small gem in a treasure chest I'm picking up here. I've been trying to figure out a bridge between the two positions.

Me too!

Would you say we can make the analogy with a sheet of paper?

No. That's just it. As long as you define even the paper, symbolizing the domain, that's not infinity. Infinity can have no definition, because any definition is a distortion. The sheet of paper itself is a limitation!

Infinity there being the infinite amount of things we can put on the paper. Then if you say it's a paper with a star on it. Then of all the infinite amount of things we used to be able to put on the paper, we now only have an infinite amount of things that happen to all be stars. So while there still is an infinite amount of freedom. There is no longer a totality of freedom the possible forms are together no longer infinity in Ra's usage of the term. Some things like a picture of a cat are no longer possible, unless of course it's a particularly starry cat..

If you agree. Then what would you say the state of the cat is if you define the paper as being a paper with a star on it? Is it's state now somehow changed or separated from the paper? Or is its state just as defined by the form we impose on the paper as the star was? Except maybe in the negative. "Is in potential here" versus "Is not in potential here"...

And if you disagree, can you try to describe in the analogy of the paper how you think it is? Or explain why the analogy fails?

I could see the analogy of the paper only as regards ourselves as entities. Let's say the sheet of paper is me. There can be no limitations on what can go on that paper. I can draw an infinite number of things on that paper. I wouldn't limit it to stars or cats. I am limited only by the sheet of paper, which, in this analogy, represents me as an entity.

I appreciate your analogy. But the sheet of paper doesn't work, because it is limited to 2 dimensions, and only that which can be drawn with a pencil, pen or paint. So it is actually too limited, to describe even an entity such as myself, much less infinity.

May I suggest an atom, which has the same pattern as a solar system. As above, so below, so to speak. Infinitely small...infinitely large. As the poem says, To see a universe in a grain of sand...

The grain of sand has atoms, which contain universes, at the microcosmic level. The more scientists try to discover the smallest particle, the deeper they go, and cannot find it...because it doesn't exist. Only the fractal pattern exists, holographically getting smaller and smaller...just as the UniVerse gets larger and larger.

These are the patterns of infinity. Infinity is contained therein. But that's not undifferentiated, undistorted infinity, because it has no container, no domain, no limit.

[βαθμιαίος]

It's difficult enough to communicate clearly, and even more difficult to communicate via the written word, and then we have compounding this difficulty, the complexity of our subject.

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

I was trying to distinguish the differentiated (distortion) from the undifferentiated. It just seems to me that we are running in circles, continuing to try to define that which cannot be defined.

LOL! I know the feeling. To quote Ra again, this whole discussion is "a poignant example of both the necessity and the near-hopelessness of attempting to teach."

Again, thank you for the clarification. I still contend that, as long as we are existing in the illusion, we experience infinity within the limits of the illusion. That doesn't make us any less infinite. As Nassim illustrates mathematically, infinity does exist within limits. I was attempting to distinguish infinity within limits from infinity, unqualified.

I don't disagree that within the illusion our normal experience of infinity is within limits. But I do understand Ra to be saying that, if we do the disciplined work of opening violet ray, we can experience infinity without limits.

I'm probably repeating myself now. What I understood from unity100, and the part I agree with him on, was that any form whatsoever indicates a limitation of some sort.

I don't disagree with that, either.

The point I'm trying to make is that illusion, too, is real. Illusion is that which creates the limits. So unless we're residing in violet ray all the time, we really aren't infinite, although Ra said we are infinite, which I interpreted as encouragement for us to seek out that potential for infinity that is within us, rather than a concrete statement about our present state of awareness, which clearly isn't violet-ray all the time, so therefore isn't infinity. (sorry for the run-on sentence, but it reflects my run-on thoughts in this case!)

I think we're getting closer to agreement. I don't disagree at all that our present state of awareness is limited. That's really the point I'm trying to make. Our awareness is limited because of our choice to explore finity. If we could but drop the limited awareness, our awareness would again be that of the Creator. And we can drop the limits by either opening violet ray or by reaching seventh density. It's very true that both usually take a great deal of time and effort, but Ra does say that it can be done in a moment.

I do disagree with the idea that when Ra said we are infinity they were referring to some future state. Here is a longer excerpt from that quote: "You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One."

As you can see, there's nothing in the quote referring to a future state. As I understand it, they are explaining how things are right now.

Respectfully, and I'm just trying to understand you here so I'm offering the feedback of how I'm interpreting your words, your words seem to imply to me that because it's illusion, it's not really a limit.

I see it as a self-imposed limit.

My contention is that the illusion itself IS the limit! It is no less real because it is illusion.

I agree.

My interpretation of Ra's use of the word illusion is that it indicates a skewing, a distorting, of that which is real. That distortion might be an amplification of certain aspects, to the exclusion of other aspects, such as we might find in a fun-house mirror. A fun-house mirror doesn't show us what isn't really there; it just distorts what is really there.

When we cast aside the illusion (in meditation or when we leave this reality), we see our unity/infinity clearly, whereas we can't see it from within the illusion.

I agree, as long as you're saying that we can cast aside the illusion in meditation.

I think the words that don't resonate with me are "but it's illusion" which seems to imply something outside of infinity, when they are used in the context of describing infinity still existing within illusion, as though illusion didn't get in the way of accessing or expressing infinity.

I definitely agree that that illusion gets in the way of accessing or expressing infinity. That's its job, as I understand it: to let us explore finity.

Not sure if I'm making sense here...

I know that feeling, too!

OK, so then do you agree that, 'we' having identity presents a qualifier, and therefore a distortion, and therefore a limit? (as long as we identify with ourselves as self.)

Yes.

I completely agree. However, we are trying to define infinity, and the entire discussion seems to be about whether the 'infinity' contained in us as entities is the same as the undifferentiated whole.

True, and on that point we may still disagree. Of course, I don't really know, and I'm not claiming I do. But I do trust Ra, and I understand from them that the infinity contained within us is indeed the undifferentiated whole.

My understanding from unity100 is that he is trying to make the point that the undifferentiated, undistorted infinity cannot be defined or contained, and thus, any attempts to even discuss it, are about something else (what I would call infinity within the limits of finity) rather than about infinity.

The thing is, I'm not trying to discuss or define undifferentiated, undistorted infinity. I'm trying to understand our finite, distorted experience. Unity100 said "infinity can never be finity. because, if it could, it means it wasnt infinity from the start." I agree with this. Infinity can't be finity. The question then is how does finity come about. My answer, which I've really just cribbed, to the best of my ability, from Ra, is that infinity masks or distorts itself into the illusion we experience. That means that it's still infinity; it just appears, from our limited viewpoint, not to be.

I do still respectfully contend that there is another layer of meaning in this quote, and it is found by paying attention to the prepositional phrase contained therein.

What I was trying to object to was when you used that quote to support the idea that we contain the pattern of infinity rather than infinity itself. My point is that Ra said each portion of any illusory pattern contains infinity, not that each portion contains the pattern of infinity.

We're like the Christians trying to understand the Bible...we're all trying to understand the Law of One, but it's questionable whether any of us can be sure that our understanding is what Ra intended. As soon as we think we understand it, we might run the risk of closing ourselves to true understanding. I find new nuggets of understanding every time I re-read the books, and every time I discuss with others, such as now.

Me, too. That's why I ask for quotes that disagree with what I'm saying Ra meant.

It can feel like a battle when there is disagreement, but I wonder how much of that is from disagreement, and how much is because we are attached to our own interpretations/viewpoints. Part of this catalyst is to learn from the viewpoints of others, instead of trying to get them to agree with us. Then it can feel like a party instead of a battle.

It wasn't so much that my interpretation wasn't accepted as that it didn't seem to even be considered.

[Monica]

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?

I don't disagree that within the illusion our normal experience of infinity is within limits. But I do understand Ra to be saying that, if we do the disciplined work of opening violet ray, we can experience infinity without limits.

This is where we disagree. Here's my take on it:

Do we meditate forever? Or do we meditate for only a few minutes or an hour?

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.

But does it matter? Our experience of infinity, even within a limit, is still so vast.

I'm probably repeating myself now. What I understood from unity100, and the part I agree with him on, was that any form whatsoever indicates a limitation of some sort.

I don't disagree with that, either.

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.

I think we're getting closer to agreement. I don't disagree at all that our present state of awareness is limited. That's really the point I'm trying to make. Our awareness is limited because of our choice to explore finity. If we could but drop the limited awareness, our awareness would again be that of the Creator. And we can drop the limits by either opening violet ray or by reaching seventh density. It's very true that both usually take a great deal of time and effort, but Ra does say that it can be done in a moment.

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 do disagree with the idea that when Ra said we are infinity they were referring to some future state. Here is a longer excerpt from that quote: "You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One."

As you can see, there's nothing in the quote referring to a future state. As I understand it, they are explaining how things are right now.

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.

Respectfully, and I'm just trying to understand you here so I'm offering the feedback of how I'm interpreting your words, your words seem to imply to me that because it's illusion, it's not really a limit.

I see it as a self-imposed limit.

Agreed. But I see that as irrelevant. It is a limit, nonetheless.

My contention is that the illusion itself IS the limit! It is no less real because it is illusion.

I agree.

OK. Progress. We agree that the illusion is a limit. The bottom line of disagreement is whether we can access infinity when we are in an altered state, and thus outside of the illusion.

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.

I agree, as long as you're saying that we can cast aside the illusion in meditation.

Sure. Temporarily. And, in some future state, permanently.

OK, so then do you agree that, 'we' having identity presents a qualifier, and therefore a distortion, and therefore a limit? (as long as we identify with ourselves as self.)

Yes.

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.

True, and on that point we may still disagree. Of course, I don't really know, and I'm not claiming I do. But I do trust Ra, and I understand from them that the infinity contained within us is indeed the undifferentiated whole.

This is subject to interpretation. I've made my case.

My understanding from unity100 is that he is trying to make the point that the undifferentiated, undistorted infinity cannot be defined or contained, and thus, any attempts to even discuss it, are about something else (what I would call infinity within the limits of finity) rather than about infinity.

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?

Unity100 said "infinity can never be finity. because, if it could, it means it wasnt infinity from the start." I agree with this. Infinity can't be finity. The question then is how does finity come about. My answer, which I've really just cribbed, to the best of my ability, from Ra, is that infinity masks or distorts itself into the illusion we experience. That means that it's still infinity; it just appears, from our limited viewpoint, not to be.

Sure. From infinity's viewpoint, it's still infinity. From ours, it's not. But ours is included in infinity's viewpoint, as is everything.

I do still respectfully contend that there is another layer of meaning in this quote, and it is found by paying attention to the prepositional phrase contained therein.

What I was trying to object to was when you used that quote to support the idea that we contain the pattern of infinity rather than infinity itself. My point is that Ra said each portion of any illusory pattern contains infinity, not that each portion contains the pattern of infinity.

The miscommunication has to do with the very term we are attempting to define: infinity.

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.

Yet, the potential is always there...the pattern of infinity in all directions.

As for the quote, this too is subject to interpretation. Perhaps both our interpretations are valid.

Let's look at it again:

"any portion of any density or illusory pattern ... contains the One Creator which is infinity."

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, the way I interpret it, a portion cannot be the whole, or even contain the whole, because then that would be the whole within the limits of the portion, and thus still having limits and thus not 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.

To me, this is saying that every pattern is infinite, and every portion of every pattern is infinite.

But that's still a concept, a distortion. And Ra said "any concept of the one intelligent infinity is incorrect."

Me, too. That's why I ask for quotes that disagree with what I'm saying Ra meant.

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

It wasn't so much that my interpretation wasn't accepted as that it didn't seem to even be considered.

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?

[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.

[Monica]

βαθμιαίος, thank you for the stimulating and respectful discussion. I don't really have anything to add at this point, without just repeating myself. I don't think we're going to figure this out from our current perspectives.

[seagrass]

I don't feel I have free will. I feel that for most of my life..it has been an illusion. It feels just close, almost, and like free will. If we are cut off from our consciousness in terms of the higher self and it is guiding us via intuition, dreams and impulses then how can we really be in control of our ship? I think it is more like putting a child in one of the grocery store cars and letting them THINK they are driving it. At this point we are given, in 3rd, the feeling we are in control...but we aren't. Destiny is driving the car. It is our free will to see that in coincidence and synchronicity. The little bread crumbs that lead to finding the connection, desiring to make it whole, and then and only then do we get to co create our reality in tandem with that higher self. Once you have matured enough to realize that you create your own reality... a huge responsibility comes with it. And I believe the 4th is the beginning steps at realizing what to do with that new found power.
The more I have made contact with my higher self the faster what I wish for comes to be. It is scary to realize you are in control of the ship and that your thoughts are more powerful than they used to be. The more that occurs the less blame and excuses and dishonesty we can have. Are we ready for free will? I guess we are going to find out.