Why would the Creator elect to create suffering for ITself?

[Ali Quadir]

I repeat the quote again...

1.5 Questioner: (The question was lost because the questioner was sitting too far from the tape recorder to be recorded.)
Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. 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. 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.

Ra is quite clearly stating each of us IS infinity... Even if you see different levels in it doesn't make the different levels different things. If it did then there would be no unity there would be many-ness. All those things are One. The creation, the creator, us. A singular unity.

Ra even describes unity with the analogy of the prism...

You're again trying to separate the system into different easy to manage objects. Trying to split the atom as it were. Saying the object in one perspective is not the same object as in the other. According to Ra to have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity. There can be nothing outside of it. If you split an atom, the atom is lost. You're no longer studying the atom.

What you're doing is cutting unity in to bits and then speaking about those bits as if they're separate objects. Separating creator from creation.

[unity100]

we have talked this before in another thread, and you have repeated it yet again.

potentially containing infinity inside oneself, because the oneself will exist for infinite amount of time and create infinite refractions, does not make that one infinity itself. see, you are there, you claim that you are infinity, yet, i am also here, and i am saying that you are not infinity, even if you are, in principle, infinite.

you do not even encompass me, or bring yourself to encompass me, or even bring yourself to encompass the ideas i am proposing. yet, you claim to be infinity.

infinity encompasses all of these, as of this moment.

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

yet, you are here, in this manifestation, exploring precisely the many-ness that is a finite concept, being one yourself.

if something can be explored, it means, it exists. therefore, finity, and manyness, exist.

the parts you bolded approach infinity from 'existing', side, from the 'creator' side. as of now, that creator, the thing existing, the very thing which needs being one, and united in order to be infinite, is, spread into infinite many-nesses, and is discovering many-nesses.

moreover, and most importantly, there is something that allows that unity to be able to spread into infinite manynesses, enabling it to spread into different aspects and characteristics and manifestations that is present inside it.

we are told that, infinite intelligence, finds focus. what is that focus. what does that focus even mean ? if everything is united, and one, and infinite, how is infinite intelligence finding focuses, to manifest a creation ?

what is the thing that allows it to find focuses, and allows it to divide into many-nesses to experience it ?

[Quantum]

Hello unity,

I am baffled as much as perplexed....but alas humored, and happily so. As you know from my many past posts, it is not my custom to break from the study of the Material very often to address a member personally, given it derails the intent of in fact concentrating on the Material. As I shared before, we are speaking to the Material, not about our selves, or each other. I will make an exception here as I believe it deserves it...but only briefly before making the larger point. Weak politicians and children are masters of moving away from a subject matter addressed to instead address the individual addressing his subject matter. We as a peoples are humorously easily hypnotized by this, and as such, love drama. The subject matter morphs before our eyes as a result. Suddenly we are no longer speaking to the subject, given the subject has become the person.

To that end, allow me to again say I am baffled as much as humored. You have suggested more than several times now, and on several threads no less, that I am either a fundamentalist on some level, or that I have a "fixation in defending an all powerful, infinite god concept - which I apparently believe in and feel that has to be true." My humor lies in the simple fact that we as humans can argue about anything at all. The Ra Material is for me the most fringe of the extreme of all esoterica I have ever come across. It is s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o w-a-y-y-y-y-y-y out there as to defy definition even within the realm of esoterica and wacky new ageism philosophy. The LOO is without doubt on the very periphery and fringes of anything that has graced the planet. How any one single member might even remotely classify another student member of the Material as fundamentalist is profoundly quite humorous indeed as a result. Please do see the humor.

Mind you, I am not injured, nor do I take offense. I am disappointed however that you have attempted to go personal. It weakens your position considerably, if not your argument significantly. Please be assured all is well given I am Quantum here as an individual who hides behind a handle, an avatar, or more honestly stated a false name. I am therefore invulnerable.

If you harbor objections to the term "One Infinite Creator", or the acronyms I have utilized by humorously asking for permission to save my fingers from typing out repeatedly "The One Infinite Creator" and electing instead to refer to "IT" in various posts simply as God, or as GOIC (God as The One Infinite Creator) and more recently as OIC (One Infinite Creator), be nominally assured that "IT" (The One Infinite Creator) is a term coined by Ra, rather than myself. I have gone to the pained extent for your benefit to state that I am not religious. How could one be either a fundamentalist or classified as orthodox religious when armed with the knowledge of the LOO? It is humorous indeed. It is incongruous and self contradictory, as in an oxymoron to suggest that one may be a student of the LOO and a fundamentalist at once. Do you see the humor?

That we are going circular is clear. I feel however that the preservation of the Material is not only important, but perhaps more significantly paramount the more we near The Harvest. To that end I will humbly persevere with patience. Not that the Material may be lost, certainly not, but that far more importantly that time is being lost. We are far better served to strive to understand the Material than to be striven to be understood. It isn't about us.

You have stated openly for all that you provide quotes to every single position you take. Actually you don't. You give explanations to the material and as often without providing source reference or quotes. Your response is that one may not be expected to explain your interpretations repeatedly. I agree. But referencing yourself as source, which you have in fact explicitly done, is not source. Where is the Ra quote specifically for the last question posed to you? You have also stated as openly that you have no problem disagreeing with Ra. How may we as readers of the the "Unity Philosophy of Infinity", hereinafter referred to as "Infunity" as a measure to preserve space, know when in fact by this statement when you are agreeing with Ra, and when you are not?

If a subject matter for its students begins even in its very inception to have differences in interpretation, it seems as clear that everything thereafter will be more muddied as a result. I ask therefore the humble forgiveness of those who may either be bored or who grow weary. I feel however these fundamentals are an extremely important topic to address. How may we as students even make the first steps into adept-hood if even the fundamentals and basics are so skewed? I do not dare to presume to speak for the LOO. How could I? I am simply a reporter of what I read. Please bear with me for the punch-line. It may well be worth the short read.

For example:

there are levels, as you see in here. and what is named as 'creator', is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle.

That's what I was trying to illustrate with my last post, but you provided an even clearer quote.
Infinity, and Conscious Infinity.
The Law of One is Infinity (0 distortion)
The Law of Free Will or Confusion is Infinity Aware aka The One Infinite Creator (1st distortion)

I note here unity that you do not correct Turtle in your very next post as a follow up? Why? These are fundamentals that are critical upon which the foundation and cornerstones are laid of what we study. Perhaps you missed it as a result of not catching it, or perhaps you believe it?

Lets us return to the fundamentals and basics of what has been given. It is important, and it grows more critical if we believe what we believe what we say we believe. We know the steps are as follows given by Don, Carla, and Jim and as compiled by Bob Childers, Ph.D in the LOO Study guide http://www.spiritofra.com/Ra-section%202.htm

Let us then as a group return to school for these basics. Mind you, this is not Quantum speaking. This is a group effort by the above named individuals. Please go to Section 2 of http://www.spiritofra.com/Ra-section%202.htm

Note before our lesson even begins that it states below explicitly "The Beginning Of All Things: The Beginning Of All Things is The Infinite One, which is The One Infinite Creator, which equals Source, which equals Intelligent Infinity. That about sums it up definitively, unless you wish to dispute source reference, source material, and those I dare say are closer to it as source individuals. Please respond to this unity. Please do not avoid it, or give your impressions of what you think it should say, but rather only your impression of what it in fact does say.

SECTION 2 -
THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS: SETTING UP THE GAME

7.THE BEGINNING OF ALL THINGS

I. THE INFINITE ONE = THE SOURCE = INTELLIGENT INFINITY

A. THE INFINITE ONE IS UNFOCUSED AND UNDIFFERENTIATED

QUESTION: Can you tell me the first known thing in creation?

RA: The first known thing in creation is infinity. (B1, 129)

B. AWARENESS DAWNS

QUESTION: What is the next step?

RA: Infinity became aware. (B1, 129)[insert Q, i.e. me: Note Infinity becoming aware becomes The Infinite One as seen below]

II. FROM THE INFINITE ONE DESIRING TO EXPERIENCE ITSELF ARISES THE CREATOR [insert Q, i.e. me: Note Infinity becoming aware becomes The Infinite One becomes The Creator, i.e, The One Infinite Creator as seen below. This is a growth process. It is unlikely that The One infinite Creator will become again Infinity Aware, which will become again Infinity Unaware?]

A. THE CREATOR CREATES (OUTER) SPACE
[insert Q, i.e. me: Creation as we know now begins. Note that infinity becoming aware was not creation. Nothing in creation happened yet. Infinity was going through a process, but was and still is Infinity]
RA: As the Creator decides to experience Itself It generates into that plenum (nothingness that has the potential for being) full of the glory and the power of the One Infinite Creator which is manifest to your perceptions as space or outer space. (B4, 65)

B. THE CREATOR DIVIDES INTO (OR CREATES) INDIVIDUALIZED PORTIONS OF ITSELF [insert Q: Creation as we know it truly begins]

RA: Step by step, the Creator becomes that which may know (or experience) Itself, and the portions of the Creator partake less purely in the power of the original word or thought. The creation itself is a form of consciousness which is unified.

Thus we have a continuing unbroken process of Infinity as a whole, versus interrupted levels and new creations. Nothing has been created yet. Infinity was unaware. Infinity became aware. Infinity-Aware began to create. By creating did Infinity unaware, which became aware, became The one Infinite Creator creating. Note that this is a process of becoming. These processes occurred to Infinity Unaware. All remain One as Infinity, inclusive of the One Infinite Creator.


Let us now turn to distortion: Section 2 (scroll down further)

The One Infinite Creator, as Turtle states, and as you allow him to state in your response immediately to him, is not the first distortion.

THE 1ST DISTORTION = FREE WILL

QUESTION: The 1st distortion of intelligent infinity is free will. Can you give a definition of this distortion?

RA: In this distortion of the Law of One it is recognized that the Creator will know Itself (or experience Itself). (B2, 7) The primal distortion is free will. (B2, 8)

QUESTION: The Creator then grants total freedom of choice in the ways of knowing. Is this correct? (B2, 7)

RA: This is quite correct. (B2, 7)

QUESTION: Then all other distortions spring from this first distortion, is this correct?

RA: It is both correct and incorrect.

In your illusion of physical existence all experience springs from the Law of Free will or the Way of Confusion.



In another sense, which we are learning, the experiences are this distortion. (B2, 7)


II. THE 2ND DISTORTION = LOVE

A. THE FOCUSING OF FREE WILL YIELDS LOVE

RA: The 1st distortion, free will, finds a focus which is known to you as logos, the Creative Principle or love. This focus may be called the 2nd distortion. (B1, 148)

RA: The second distortion is the distortion of love. (B2, 7-8)

B. LOVE SEEKS TO KNOW ITSELF

RA: The distortion love is the great activator and primal co-Creator of various creations using intelligent infinity. (B2, 8)... Love uses Its intelligent energy to create a certain pattern of illusions or densities in order to satisfy Its own intelligent estimate of a method of knowing itself. (B2, 9)



III. THE 3RD DISTORTION = LIGHT

(NOTE: Light, or light energy, is transformative: it may, or may not, be connected to love)

RA: This intelligent energy thus creates a distortion known as Light. From these 3 distortions come many, many hierarchies of distortions each having its own paradoxes to be synthesized, no one being any more important than another. (B1, 148)

How much more clear may it be stated? Are all of these individuals incorrect? Infinity was unaware. Infinity became aware. Infinity remained Infinity, once unaware, but now aware. Infinity Unaware = Infinity Aware= The One Infinite Creator as an unbroken process that continues even as we speak infinitely. THE BEGINNING OF ALL THINGS = THE INFINITE ONE = THE SOURCE = INTELLIGENT INFINITY. Note herein that nothing has even been created yet. Thus far we have a process, and not the distinction of levels. You seem to define the process of becoming as if though these were levels, or perhaps individuations. Levels are the distortions after the process of becoming. There has indeed been only one distinction made, that of Infinity becoming aware. But there has been no levels created as of yet. The distortions as levels come next: 1. Free Will, 2. Love and 3. Light.
This is a growth process. Upon the end of the cycle of coalescence, it seems highly unlikely that Light will reverse itself, as will love, as will free will, as will then too The One infinite Creator, which will become again only Infinity Aware without creating, which will alas become again Infinity Unaware? This is devolution rather than infinity evolving in love light and free will expanding infinitely.

If there is a problem with my understanding of the fundamentals as expressly given by these distinguished individuals, as much as what I ever so humbly likewise concur is my understanding of the Material as well, then it seems one of us has been studying the wrong sources and may need to start over.

I would ask in academic honesty that when a Ra quote is given, that you give your impressions specifically of what you believe Ra says, and not what you think it should say. This is an important distinction. Rather in fact give only your impression of what in fact you believe it, the quote, says. Giving your opinions, which agreed are too many and far too long to reiterate, rather than your understanding of Ra's statements is an entirely different exercise. An opinion to what Ra says may be given in a few words. One must agree that asking the reader to go back and read the many pages of your opinion is as tedious as it would be for you to repeat them. However, giving a simple answer to what you believe Ra says to a quote is an easy task. You instead repeatedly refuse by stating you have written far too much? Furthermore, in the same vein of academic honesty, if you do have of a different opinion than that of what Ra says, then be as honest and as clear and say so that we may be as clear when you do disagree with Ra, as you have expressly stated you sometimes do. It would save much time and clear up many misunderstandings far more expeditiously.

For whatever it is worth, my humble opinion is that what we are engaging in is not only critical, but a fundamental exercise as time well spent. The reader must then decide what is their opinion based on their own understanding. No one may learn/teach for another. But we as a group may assist in whatever small way we might as an exercise in STO to those that are either still new to the Materiel, or are in question, much like a smaller exercise or template of what it is that Ra attempts for us.

May I or any then offer specific Ra quotes as a service to garner your interpretation in but a few words specifically to those quotes? Let us begin with just this one below by yourself as regards what we just read above in the Study Guide as given by these distinguished individuals as per Ra. You said:

therefore, confusing 'the creator', the focus point of infinite intelligence, with infinite intelligence itself, and, infinite intelligence, with infinity itself, would be incorrect.

How do you reconcile any of your sentiments with these? It seems it can't be done. Better to ignore them then, or simply toss them it seems. May we have an answer specific to what seems unique to your sentiment of the above, or does your answer remain the same that you have already addressed it, which is tantamount to refuting what is given. Would you agree? Is it not academically dishonest to suggest that questions such as this, which are so blatantly present as to be as equally blatantly obvious, are unproductive?

May I further encourage all readers to avail themselves to the Study Guide provided as a short course and overview, perhaps equally as important in many ways as is the search engine provided.

I close as my contribution, however humble it may be,

Love and Light,

~ Q ~

[Quantum]

Given that I have edited several statements to my above post, and also added a new paragraph with a comment highlighted that I found as a case in point, it would be unfair not to post this anew rather than just as an edit as seen above, if in fact my post above was read either last night or earlier today, rather than just now after the edit in question. This might create a false impression that the opportunity to answer is being ignored, when in fact it was innocently read before the edit was made. Here then in fairness is the last statement above to offer that opportunity for an answer to a very telling dialog and one I humbly consider to be important: Please see the above post as regards the Study Guide noted http://www.spiritofra.com/Ra-section%202.htm

For whatever it is worth, my humble opinion is that what we are engaging in is not only critical, but a fundamental exercise as time well spent. The reader must then decide what is their opinion based on their own understanding. No one may learn/teach for another. But we as a group may assist in whatever small way we might as an exercise in STO to those that are either still new to the Materiel, or are in question, much like a smaller exercise or template of what it is that Ra attempts for us.

May I or any then offer specific Ra quotes as a service to garner your interpretation in but a few words specifically to those quotes? Let us begin with just this one below by yourself as regards what we just read above in the Study Guide as given by these distinguished individuals as per Ra. You said:

therefore, confusing 'the creator', the focus point of infinite intelligence, with infinite intelligence itself, and, infinite intelligence, with infinity itself, would be incorrect.

How do you reconcile any of your sentiments with these? It seems it can't be done. Better to ignore them then, or simply toss them it seems. May we have an answer specific to what seems unique to your sentiment of the above, or does your answer remain the same that you have already addressed it, which is tantamount to refuting what is given. Would you agree? Is it not academically dishonest to suggest that questions such as this, which are so blatantly present as to be as equally blatantly obvious, are unproductive?

May I further encourage all readers to avail themselves to The LOO Study Guide provided as a short course and overview, perhaps equally as important in many ways as is the search engine provided.

I close as my contribution, however humble it may be,

Love and Light,

~ Q ~

[Ali Quadir]

we have talked this before in another thread, and you have repeated it yet again.

potentially containing infinity inside oneself, because the oneself will exist for infinite amount of time and create infinite refractions, does not make that one infinity itself. see, you are there, you claim that you are infinity, yet, i am also here, and i am saying that you are not infinity, even if you are, in principle, infinite.

you do not even encompass me, or bring yourself to encompass me, or even bring yourself to encompass the ideas i am proposing. yet, you claim to be infinity.

infinity encompasses all of these, as of this moment.

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

yet, you are here, in this manifestation, exploring precisely the many-ness that is a finite concept, being one yourself.

if something can be explored, it means, it exists. therefore, finity, and manyness, exist.

the parts you bolded approach infinity from 'existing', side, from the 'creator' side. as of now, that creator, the thing existing, the very thing which needs being one, and united in order to be infinite, is, spread into infinite many-nesses, and is discovering many-nesses.

moreover, and most importantly, there is something that allows that unity to be able to spread into infinite manynesses, enabling it to spread into different aspects and characteristics and manifestations that is present inside it.

we are told that, infinite intelligence, finds focus. what is that focus. what does that focus even mean ? if everything is united, and one, and infinite, how is infinite intelligence finding focuses, to manifest a creation ?

what is the thing that allows it to find focuses, and allows it to divide into many-nesses to experience it ?

you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. 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

Distortion is how the infinite can be perceived as the many. You are trying to see as many that which is one. Thus you distort yourself. You are doing this by seeing a timeline in something that is an eternal now moment. Which is good unless you then proceed to consider the timeline reality. The map, as they say, is not the territory.

You are correct in stating that manyness exists. However, it is not what it seems to be. The illusory nature of manyness is demonstrated by religion, science and the Law of One itself. None of these are working in a vacuum. And they all describe the same reality from their unique perspective.

16.19 Questioner: Can you give me some kind of history of your social memory complex and how you became aware of the Law of One?
Ra: I am Ra. The path of our learning is graven in the present moment. There is no history, as we understand your concept. Picture, if you will, a circle of being. We know the alpha and omega as infinite intelligence. The circle never ceases. It is present. The densities we have traversed at various points in the circle correspond to the characteristics of cycles: first, the cycle of awareness; second, the cycle of growth; third, the cycle of self-awareness; fourth, the cycle of love or understanding; fifth, the cycle of light or wisdom; sixth, the cycle of light/love, love/light or unity; seventh, the gateway cycle; eighth, the octave which moves into a mystery we do not plumb.

Not only did Ra borrow here the alpha and omega. An ancient metaphor for God. Thus linking it to our concepts. He qualifies that there is only the present moment. While you're cutting things up into an "first", "next", "and then" story.. This is useful in discerning different qualities of the thing you're cutting up. But it should not be mistaken for the whole once it's cut up. This reality is not cut up, it's a unity.

The alpha and omega, Ouroboros, the being that causes himself. Also the sign of infinity in our symbology. Ra isn't telling anything new here. He's just being exceptionally lucid about it.

We are infinity, the veil of distortions exist because we want to experience an alternative to "the complete unity of thought which binds all things". But it is not a requirement, it is not the deeper reality. All these alternatives exist within the eternal moment where the complete unity of thought exists. Our limited awareness does not mean we are not Gods.

You're saying we're infinite in principle, think about it, what does that mean? That I'm infinite in Ra's theory but reality doesn't match this theory? Then Ra's theory must be wrong, or you're not seeing straight. Infinity is an experiential reality, even to us mere mortals, in spite of the distortions of daily life we experience lucid moments.

[unity100]

Quantum,

i have expressed my feelings regarding discussing with you. repeatedly restating or rephrasing the same questions or accusations of not 'sticking by the book' will not 'encourage' me to discuss with you again. i have no qualms in disagreeing with Ra, don, Carla, jim, bob, you, shaughnessy or another person if i disagree with, and whenever i do, i state that i disagree, openly and directly, and provide reasoning. anywhere like that, i have done as such. if something is a direct conclusion of another person, entity, channeling, i have also stated as such and given references. you are rephrasing and reiterating same things over and over again and expecting answers again. as i told you, i wont discuss with you.

Distortion is how the infinite can be perceived as the many. You are trying to see as many that which is one. Thus you distort yourself. You are doing this by seeing a timeline in something that is an eternal now moment. Which is good unless you then proceed to consider the timeline reality. The map, as they say, is not the territory.

what you call 'distortion' is the discovery of the multipleness and characteristics that underlie in what you call the 'creator' and, in a greater extent, its higher principle, the infinity.

'creator will know its self', means this. if there is nothing to be known, you cant know nothing. if there are things to be known, that means there are elements in something, that can be identified and perceived.

'eternal now' moment is reality as you approach infinity, and it is unreal as you go down the lower levels. for us, the time concept exists more, for infinity, it both exists and it is both none.

if 'you were all that there is' there would ne NO need to discover anything else than you, ali qadir. yet, here we are, we are discovering ourselves too, different fractions, characteristics, elements that exist in infinity.

dubbing it 'illusory' doesnt change the fact that all these refractions, differentiations, characteristics, focuses exist, within the 'one creator' you speak about, and consequentially, the infinity it is a part of.

i think it cant be clearer than that.

all what the philosophy you are employing doing is, dubbing some reality, existence, differentiation, focus, - whatever you call - that DOES exist within infinity, and then call it 'illusory', because, everything is united within infinity.

'ooooh it was unreal' -> no, it was real, and it is still real, at point infinity too. just, all the different existences and refractions in between infinity are infinitely harmonized at point infinity, and, therefore, the outside limited perceiver, and the inside fragment, is unable to perceive the differentiations that underlie within infinity, and see it as 'one'.

same goes for the 'creator' of this octave, the central sun, same goes for infinite intelligence. to you, an outside observer or a limited observer, infinite intelligence would seem 'one', uniform and single. yet, all what you see around you, in this octave, are what exists within it. its characteristics, refractions, different focuses.

its a matter of perception.

Not only did Ra borrow here the alpha and omega. An ancient metaphor for God. Thus linking it to our concepts. He qualifies that there is only the present moment. While you're cutting things up into an "first", "next", "and then" story.. This is useful in discerning different qualities of the thing you're cutting up. But it should not be mistaken for the whole once it's cut up. This reality is not cut up, it's a unity.

The alpha and omega, Ouroboros, the being that causes himself. Also the sign of infinity in our symbology. Ra isn't telling anything new here. He's just being exceptionally lucid about it.

We are infinity, the veil of distortions exist because we want to experience an alternative to "the complete unity of thought which binds all things". But it is not a requirement, it is not the deeper reality. All these alternatives exist within the eternal moment where the complete unity of thought exists. Our limited awareness does not mean we are not Gods.

You're saying we're infinite in principle, think about it, what does that mean? That I'm infinite in Ra's theory but reality doesn't match this theory? Then Ra's theory must be wrong, or you're not seeing straight. Infinity is an experiential reality, even to us mere mortals, in spite of the distortions of daily life we experience lucid moments.

Not only did Ra borrow here the alpha and omega. An ancient metaphor for God. Thus linking it to our concepts. He qualifies that there is only the present moment. While you're cutting things up into an "first", "next", "and then" story.. This is useful in discerning different qualities of the thing you're cutting up. But it should not be mistaken for the whole once it's cut up. This reality is not cut up, it's a unity.

The alpha and omega, Ouroboros, the being that causes himself. Also the sign of infinity in our symbology. Ra isn't telling anything new here. He's just being exceptionally lucid about it.

We are infinity, the veil of distortions exist because we want to experience an alternative to "the complete unity of thought which binds all things". But it is not a requirement, it is not the deeper reality. All these alternatives exist within the eternal moment where the complete unity of thought exists. Our limited awareness does not mean we are not Gods.
[/quote]

ra used many earthly concepts to communicate a lot of things. the communication channels and vocabulary used does not make the earthly concepts take place of purer concepts.

alpha, omega, beginning and the end, the circle is, because each octave ends, and another octave begins, from focuses. yet, there is definitely difference, because, the central logos does not always repeat the same octave over and over and over. there is a previous, and a next one. each octave is built on the experience harvest of the earlier.

that means, the one central sun, the logos, the 'creator' as one dub it, actually changes.

You're saying we're infinite in principle, think about it, what does that mean? That I'm infinite in Ra's theory but reality doesn't match this theory? Then Ra's theory must be wrong, or you're not seeing straight. Infinity is an experiential reality, even to us mere mortals, in spite of the distortions of daily life we experience lucid moments.

we have discussed this, and i think we are reiterating it again.

you are infinite in principle. since there is infinity, and you are a part of that infinity, you, also have to be infinite, inwards, and forward. as such, you will forever exist as a part of infinity, and keep changing the way your characteristic is, and, infinite realities within you will keep existing, and changing, as such. and with you, infinite other characteristics in infinite other levels will keep changing, and their inner planes will be keeping infinite realities and infinite planes themselves, changing.

even if you unite with infinite intelligence through the central logos of this octave, at the end of this octave, these will remain there. and, when another experiential nexus begins, they will manifest again, in the manner they have changed to, from the last octave.

that is infinity of the finite, and the nature of infinity that is comprised of infinite finites.

[Quantum]

Quantum,

i have expressed my feelings regarding discussing with you. repeatedly restating or rephrasing the same questions or accusations of not 'sticking by the book' will not 'encourage' me to discuss with you again. i have no qualms in disagreeing with Ra, don, Carla, jim, bob, you, shaughnessy or another person if i disagree with, and whenever i do, i state that i disagree, openly and directly, and provide reasoning. anywhere like that, i have done as such. if something is a direct conclusion of another person, entity, channeling, i have also stated as such and given references. you are rephrasing and reiterating same things over and over again and expecting answers again. as i told you, i wont discuss with you.

Actually Unity, you have never been this honest before, or as candid, or as direct. You see, I always thought that you did in fact agree with the LOO completely, were an active student of it, and that you were a strong supporter for it, but that you perhaps somehow were reading things into the Material which otherwise were not there, or that you somehow were simply interpreting it differently.

Well....you can certainly see and understand my confusion. All is crystal clear now. Pursuing the truth is always the better road, as is being stubborn for what I feel is a higher cause. It has at last produced just this...The Truth. Now that you've made it abundantly clear that you have no qualms whatsoever in sometimes, to often, to even presumably constantly (given the reader may never know when you do) disagreeing with Don, Carla, Jim, and most particularly Ra, and as presumably the LOO itself as a consequence, we as the members of Bring4th may now also understand where you are coming from. Alas, it is as I have always assumed it was, a separate philosophy, i.e. The Philosophy of Unity as opposed to the philosophy of the LOO. All may at last fully know where you stand.

There is nothing more to add, nothing more to debate, nothing more to dispute. You have spread your wings to encompass the entire LOO as refutable literature and teachings, to be disagreed with at your whim, and to be added to by Unity Philosophy when it suits you, this as opposed to wholly instead advancing the study of it for deeper understanding for it as a group.

I am still attempting to wrap my arms around the LOO more fully as I have been for many years now. To attempt to more fully do so by compounding it with "Unity Philosophy", now openly expressed as such, is....well...is just too complicated for me and my smaller mind without first more fully understanding the one task at hand I've set my sights on....namely understanding the LOO more fully.

You bring an entirely new dynamic into the mix, and one which all readers of the LOO must discern for themselves. But that you have been expressing many concepts contrary to the LOO is no longer a point that is unclear. I am happy to have had the opportunity of digging this out to the extent that it has finally been uncovered and that you have been as forthright to once and for all put out there and forevermore to rest.

My last rhetorical question to you would be: what do you hope to accomplish as a student of a Material which you have yet to fully grasp, this by first disagreeing with it and concepts contained within therein? Isn't this rather self defeating to be in studentship to a said material? It is a rhetorical question only and as such one that needs not even an answer given the answer is already self-evident to any seeker in further study, of at least the LOO.

I hope the group has been patient enough with me for being as unrelenting as I have to flush this out and beg your indulgences for allowing me the same as a result. It is an eye-opener, but one in which all is seen more clear in the full light of the day.

In an STO environment, does disagreement to the core of the very material we profess and wish to understand more fully bring in an entirely new dynamic? It is interesting...................

Thank you Unity. You are direct. For that you are to be acknowledged.

Love and Light my friend....

~ Q ~

[Ali Quadir]

The IAM presence lies forever in the center and forever in the now... It will never move away from us it will never be in the future or the past. And it will never be fragmented differentiated or distorted. A subtle background reminder of who we are. All the things that happened, becoming aware, even the whole universe being created doesn't change that initial fact.

The things you describe are merely leaves on a tree. They grow and fall, where you suggest they will reincarnate again I suggest they will turn to compost. That feeds the tree. They are not eternal they are part of the illusion. IAM is not, it perceives those lives. And it perceives the identification of those leaves with themselves.

What you call real is as real as matter, as real as tables, chairs ideas, things we can touch, sense, taste smell think about, love or be insulted by... What you call real is what a mystic calls the illusion of city block consciousness. Because he's gone beyond, risen above, tripped out of that consciousness. What Ra calls becoming one with intelligent infinity.

The beginning and end of the octave exists out of time unity... It is merely our 3d manifestation associating time with this. But there is no real temporal distance between us and the end or start of the octave.. The whole circle is one thing. One IAM... One infinite creator.

[unity100]

Actually Unity, you have never been this honest before, or as candid, or as direct. You see, I always thought that you did in fact agree with the LOO completely, were an active student of it, and that you were a strong supporter for it, but that you perhaps somehow were reading things into the Material which otherwise were not there, or that you somehow were simply interpreting it differently.

actually, i have been more than this 'honest' before, in the very threads i linked to you in the first repetition you have made. the thread i have pointed you to, i have explicitly stated that i did not agree with Ra at one particular point, and i have stated those points.

apparently, you havent read that thread, despite there have been a lot of the issues that you think you were posing, discussed before you even posed them.

moreover, i have expressed that i did not agree with Carla at a particular interpretation of some concept, in a less detailed and intricate subject. had you have searched for threads or posts by unity100, you would have seen that too. that still would be understandable, since, one couldnt read each and every thread to find it. so, it doesnt matter much.

however, the former, matters a lot. you have brought various arguments, you have been replied that exact arguments and even more was posed, and discussed before, and you have been given a direct pointer to the topics therein. moreover, you have come back, and said that, after reading them you saw 'everything about what i was thinking' in an even clearer light.

yet, you came up, saying that 'you have never been this honest before'.

only conclusions can be :

a) you havent read any of the threads you pointed to, and just kept on discussing on your pleasure, expecting that, somehow, the entity would again reiterate 7 pages long of discussion just because you have asked. totally disrespectful to the person you are discussing with ...
b) you have read and noticed those, but you have forgotten them, henceforth coming and saying that 'you have not been this honest before'. totally unproductive and inefficient.

<-- this line is a reference point that i will refer to, in a following paragraph -->

The Philosophy of Unity as opposed to the philosophy of the LOO. All may at last fully know where you stand.

dont exaggerate. there is no such 'philosophy of unity as opposed to philosophy of the LOO'. when i disagree, i state that i disagree, and it is explicit and evident.

some conclusion doesnt being to your liking regarding a particular belief/philosophy you hold, does not mean that it is a 'philosophy of someone else' as opposed to 'philosophy of LOO'.

more importantly, ra, is not the bringers of unchanging dogma. they are also those who are teaching/learning and learning/teaching. moreover, the concepts of 6d, 7d, and beyond is explicitly left to the own learning of the adept, by them, not to intervene with the adept's free will.


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

other parts of your post, more claims and various 'accusations' of things that do not validate your own perspective and conclusions, i am going to skip by. im not interested in such discussion of accusation and coercion to forcibly validate any kind of belief or dogma.

...........

My last rhetorical question to you would be: what do you hope to accomplish as a student of a Material which you have yet to fully grasp, this by first disagreeing with it and concepts contained within therein? Isn't this rather self defeating to be in studentship to a said material? It is a rhetorical question only and as such one that needs not even an answer given the answer is already self-evident to any seeker in further study, of at least the LOO.

and my response to your last rhetorical question is, why do you even hope that someone you are wanting to discuss with, to actually honor your desire and discuss with you, despite you havent given the slightest credence and importance and shortest span of attention to what they have said, DESPITE you, - for some reason - claiming to have done as such, but have NOT .....

at this point, refer to the reference point in the above paragraphs i left a marker at.

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

as of this point, i am under the impression that, you are discussing and debating to 'win'. and you are employing various approaches to do as such.

the point at which, you have said 'you are good, you are very good', regarding the time when i stated that no entity would be able to have a 6d harvest on a 3d planet without a society complex being present, was the time when i got that impression first. what does 'good' even mean in this context :

a) you were surprised that someone else noticed something you havent noticed before, despite it being a VERY important detail in regard to the question that is being debated. and you have expressed your surprise. i would prefer it to have been as such ... however :
b) or, you have noticed it before, and it was a weak spot in your approach/argument, and you were amused that the 'opposing' debater have noticed and posed it. and you have expressed your amusement. common sense says that it shouldnt be as such. but then again :

you have, despite that important factor was clearly making a harvest of 4d, 6d impossible at a 3d planet which didnt have any 6d society complexes preparing for a harvest for 6d (actually that planet not supporting 6d at all, with Ra residing in 5d of this planet), you have rephrased and reiterated your argument, trying to go around the society complex necessity for 6d harvest. and when the other person have further elaborated and stressed the requirements for society complex harvests as in what has been relied to us, you have, AGAIN, used similar words of surprise like 'very good', DESPITE the other party expressing his slight disturbance/annoyance with that kind of thing.

at this point, i have stated that, i got the impression that you were seeing the discussion at hand as a kind of a sport, a duel, in which one has to 'win', and experiencing the quick 'wits' of the fencer you were dueling with, and i found that unproductive. that is the point i have let go of discussing with you, because this can happen due to either of the below :

a) you are really seeing discussions as duels in which people win or lose arguments, and they are battles of 'quick wits', and acting and behaving as such, using any kind of means to win the argument

b) you are extremely careless about the material you are touting like a holy book and waving over our heads, and accusing others of not sticking by it or not knowing it at detail, despite claiming to be doing as such yourself. and, still, you havent noticed a VERY important detail regarding a very important concept that is being discussed, saying that you havent reflected on the material you speak of, despite attempting to talk on it in that detail. moreover, you have attempted to ignore that information, despite it has been expressed and you noted its existence and importance with your own words.


a makes someone totally undesirable to discuss with. b, makes someone unproductive to discuss with.

and that is why, i am not discussing anything with you, since then. you have requested honesty, and there it is, direct, and honest. with options too ...

i may be wrong in my observations. i may be right. however, the behavior you have undertaken in the preceding threads, have been in that direction. therefore, i am refraining from discussing with you.

this is probably my last response to you. i see that as i refrain from any reply, you are increasing the level of accusations, claims, and direct coercive expressions you are employing. i have observed it in another discussion you have made with someone else, without me participating in it at all.

i didnt refrain from replying to people who have even directly assaulted and insulted me in the past. yet, im refraining from replying to you, due to the above. it is not the wording and seeming formality and politeness that make or break correspondence.

if, with time, i observe that your approach to discussions have changed, my perspective in discussing with you, may change.

i wish you a nice day.

---

The IAM presence lies forever in the center and forever in the now... It will never move away from us it will never be in the future or the past. And it will never be fragmented differentiated or distorted. A subtle background reminder of who we are. All the things that happened, becoming aware, even the whole universe being created doesn't change that initial fact.

ra, also says 'i am Ra' as opposed to 'we are Ra'. to Carla, or to any other entity which have contacted them, they feel as 'ra'.

yet, this doesnt change the fact that there are 60 million+ entities in Ra society complex.

the 'IAM' presence, regardless of it is eloquent capitalization of letters, is the same.

you may feel that infinite intelligence is 'one' entity. yet, there are infinite refractions, characteristics, aspects, focuses exist within it. the fact that outside observer cannot perceive the differences because the finites are extremely harmonized, doesnt erase those finites. just like, how the 60 million+ entities and their characteristics, that exist within Ra, do not go away by Ra feeling like a harmonized, uniform entity to us.

The things you describe are merely leaves on a tree. They grow and fall, where you suggest they will reincarnate again I suggest they will turn to compost. That feeds the tree. They are not eternal they are part of the illusion. IAM is not, it perceives those lives. And it perceives the identification of those leaves with themselves.

just like how prefixing an entity that exists within Ra society complex 'mere' or 'merely exists' doesnt make that entity 'none', 'nil', 'illusion', dubbing a tree that grows in the fruit does not make that fruit a 'non'.

the fruit, exists. it is a part of that tree, it is a characteristic that is included in the entire thing that is the tree + roots + fruits + whatever.

What you call real is as real as matter, as real as tables, chairs ideas, things we can touch, sense, taste smell think about, love or be insulted by... What you call real is what a mystic calls the illusion of city block consciousness. Because he's gone beyond, risen above, tripped out of that consciousness. What Ra calls becoming one with intelligent infinity.

infinite intelligence is discovering its own self, by refracting to infinite finites. you cannot discover, what does not exist. therefore, finites, exist.

The beginning and end of the octave exists out of time unity... It is merely our 3d manifestation associating time with this. But there is no real temporal distance between us and the end or start of the octave.. The whole circle is one thing. One IAM... One infinite creator.

our 'mere' 3d manifestation's associated time, still exists, when a wanderer from the next octave comes back to this octave. that octave is in our 'future', yet, when a wanderer comes back to this octave, this octave, STILL exists. implying that, the time and happenings here, at this point in time, still keep existing, infinite octaves later.

'time' is change. actually it doesnt matter whether it happens on octave level, or planetary level. from the perspective of entire universe, the logos, state may be timeless compared to ours, change is non, everything stagnant. but, from the scale of the central sun of this universe (and therefore universe), the ratios are much higher. if the changes are much slower, the change is much bigger too. therefore, a noticeable change from that perspective, still exists.

[Quantum]

Unity,

All is well. It actually really is. I will confess I hardly understood much of what you wrote however. Some of what you wrote from what I'm able to decipher is correct, while other parts read as if what you've given me credit for may have been from another member.

It is all irrelevant however to the point of your open willingness to disagree with the Material as you've confessed, as much as the individuals surrounding it, namely Ra. I've provided you specific selected Ra quotes as evidence to your statements to the contrary. You choose to ignore them taking the position which seems only to weaken your position that instead you do not want to engage with me on these points. Interesting. I've point blank further provided you the Study Guide which it seems prompted you to openly state that you have no problem disagreeing with Don, Carla, Jim, Bob or Ra, and presumably the LOO. You've been asked to address those points as provided therein which clearly dispute your interpretations fully and wholly. Still no answer. You do not address this either. Instead what comes forth is leveled at me? Interesting.

Once again, as suggested earlier, you turn your attention to the person questioning your subject matter, rather than the subject matter itself. Apart from explaining how the distinguished individuals of the LOO could all be unanimously wrong, and that you are somehow correct, it seems your only recourse is to address me instead.

I remain open to hear your responses to the several quotes of Ra referenced that have been provided, all with no response. I remain as open to the Study Guide questions. I have provided source. As further suggested, the only recourse you have is to ignore the cited references, or toss them out, or now instead focus your energy on the individual questioning your subject matter.

Do you disagree with the Study Guide? It is a short answer if you don't. It is a complicated answer if you do given it is contrary to everything you have proposed as regards your very unique and contradictory interpretation to a mid 6D entity that graces us with their teachings. Please unity. Which is it?

If you wish to discuss the Study Guide as but just one sourced subject, please do. I am open.Your non-response will be as good as the response as is making it about me. I close again by stating and reaffirming, it is not about us striving to be understood. Its about us striving to understand.

My entire focus has been on the LOO wholly. You know this. I do wish you all the Love and the Light, and do not wish for you to feel the pinch of having to defend what is becoming increasingly more difficult to in fact defend. Perhaps it is difficult because you seem to refuse to bend or yield to any member I have seen thus far, ever, or even seemingly to the MATERIAL ITSELF. Lets try it again as fellow seekers as an academic attempt if you will. I mean you no ham, no foul, nor any injury my friend. I've said this repeatedly. I am open to hear your simple explanations as regards the Study Guide. What have you to say?

~ Q ~

[unity100]

I wont be replying to you. thank you for your participation.

[Quantum]

I wont be replying to you. thank you for your participation.

And once again, thank you for yours, and your honesty.

[Crimson]

What is with this "Study Guide"? If I go to the website I read:

Study Guide compiled by Bob Childers, Ph.D.
additional compilations by David Wilcock

Very well, so? I am not very fond of the type of reasoning David Wilcock uses. He only has interpretations of the LOO and they are as valid as any interpretations given by anyone who studies the Ra Material. I certainly do not consider him to be any authority on the Material (maybe with the exception of using the material to make a living...). I also do not get impressed by Ph.D.'s after a name.

[Quantum]

What is with this "Study Guide"? If I go to the website I read:

Study Guide compiled by Bob Childers, Ph.D.
additional compilations by David Wilcock

Very well, so? ..... I also do not get impressed by Ph.D.'s after a name.

Unless I'm mistaken, page one of the Study Guide http://www.spiritofra.com/Ra-section%201.htm suggests that Don, Carla, and Jim particpiated in the making of the Study Guide and that it was complied by Bob Childers, with additions added by David Wilcock. The simple point for a study guide is merely for quick overview as is any study guide which avails one to the ability of not having to read all four books. Given Don, Carla, and Jim presumably had a hand in same, it seems reasonable to conclude that not only did they live and dedicate themselves to the cause, if not even one member in fact potentially dying for it, but that they were the embodiment of it and that as such may even now either have more to share one fine day if not later, but also that as a result of their daily lives immersed in it may intimately be more in tune with it on some finer level than are we who I doubt anyone would argue are more peripheral to it on a daily basis. This may be open for debate, but I would be surprised if it were. Are any members to be enshrined or worshiped as a result? Certainly not. I'm sure that Carla would chuckle at the humor. Are they to be respected, praised, and given the privilege of being honored and heard? I certainly think so. As for David Wilcock, I too have my issues with him. But is he without doubt studied and immersed in the material? Certainly so. There are no authorities on the LOO. The Study Guide does not purport to give interpretations as much as it does shortcuts and an overview. It is a secondary source. There are those that have literally and figuratively given their lives to it more than we. Respect where credit is due, as much as credit where respect is due. They go like a silken hand into a velvet glove one to the other.

~ Q ~

[Crimson]

What is with this "Study Guide"? If I go to the website I read:

Study Guide compiled by Bob Childers, Ph.D.
additional compilations by David Wilcock

Very well, so? ..... I also do not get impressed by Ph.D.'s after a name.

Unless I'm mistaken, page one of the Study Guide http://www.spiritofra.com/Ra-section%201.htm suggests that Don, Carla, and Jim particpiated in the making of the Study Guide and that it was complied by Bob Childers, with additions added by David Wilcock. The simple point for a study guide is merely for quick overview as is any study guide which avails one to the ability of not having to read all four books. Given Don, Carla, and Jim presumably had a hand in same, it seems reasonable to conclude that not only did they live and dedicate themselves to the cause, if not even one member in fact potentially dying for it, but that they were the embodiment of it and that as such may even now either have more to share one fine day if not later, but also that as a result of their daily lives immersed in it may intimately be more in tune with it on some finer level than are we who I doubt anyone would argue are more peripheral to it on a daily basis. This may be open for debate, but I would be surprised if it were. Are any members to be enshrined or worshiped as a result? Certainly not. I'm sure that Carla would chuckle at the humor. Are they to be respected, praised, and given the privilege of being honored and heard? I certainly think so. As for David Wilcock, I too have my issues with him. But is he without doubt studied and immersed in the material? Certainly so. There are no authorities on the LOO. The Study Guide does not purport to give interpretations as much as it does shortcuts and an overview. It is a secondary source. There are those that have literally and figuratively given their lives to it more than we. Respect where credit is due, as much as credit where respect is due. They go like a silken hand into a velvet glove one to the other.

~ Q ~

You don't know if this was done by the original channelers (which I deeply respect) you only assume. Anyway, I find your answer very disrespectful since you are accusing me of disrespect apparently just for the fun of it and you are introducing a study guide which I cannot find sponsored by Carla and Jim (certainly not by Don Elkins --his name also appears on the title of the page). By the way I deeply respect Don Elkins and I feel much love for him --the PhD comment was directed to the compilation author as a general comment to address the fallacy "appeal to authority". I want to thank everybody who has tried is trying to impulse the LOO.

Love and light my friend.

[Ali Quadir]

Unity, I never said finites do not exist... Try to understand what I am saying here. I called them as real as tables and chairs... That doesn't mean they're not illusions. It means they only exist from a perspective. Change your perspective and change those things. The thing that doesn't change when you change perspective is the thing more real than reality itself. IAM..

If you want to understand a thing, you don't try to get one 2d perspective lodged in your head. You try to get a depth in your understanding.

An illusion is a real thing, it exists. I never denied that. An illusion is a real thing that is different from what it seems to be to the observer. So it is on it's own horridly unreliable for extracting understanding from.

If you're trying to understand and appreciate a statue, you walk around it to capture a deeper essence instead of getting stuck on one perspective... This is the same, if you want to understand reality you have to have various perspectives on it.. Most people have but one and cannot even imagine there being others... They just call the others unreal or untrue. They can't fathom the possibility of there being more to reality than what they interpret it to be. You're basically doing the same.

A chair is a collection of atoms whirling through space in a mad dance.. A chair is also a place of comfort or a place of work. A chair can have meaning and bestow status upon the one sitting in it. A chair to some is not a chair to others... If you get hung up on your naive interpretation of chair you won't ever gain a deeper insight on it...

I'm also done here, the rest will only be repetition.

[Quantum]

You don't know if this was done by the original channelers (which I deeply respect) you only assume. Anyway, I find your answer very disrespectful since you are accusing me of disrespect apparently just for the fun of it and you are introducing a study guide which I cannot find sponsored by Carla and Jim (certainly not by Don Elkins --his name also appears on the title of the page). By the way I deeply respect Don Elkins and I feel much love for him --the PhD comment was directed to the compilation author as a general comment to address the fallacy "appeal to authority". I want to thank everybody who has tried is trying to impulse the LOO.
Love and light my friend.

You are correct Crimson. I only assume that they had a hand in it as set forth in the manner in which the page is laid out with their names appearing first. By the way, Dons name very much appears on the page, and is in fact the very first? It is furthermore a logical conclusion given that the Study Guide has been out there for many years with their names attached to it that L/L supports it. It seems likely that if there were any disagreements with it that they might have surfaced long before our two posts. Lastly, if one clicks on the L/L Research Site Entry Page and goes to links on the left of the page http://www.bring4th.org/links/ you will note that The Study Guide appears as a source reference. One would certainly think that they are deeply involved as a result and would not support the Study Guide in any event with their names attached to it while also allowing it to appear on their own site. Note secondarily that within the http name that bring4th itself is self-evident in the address as well. In a closing note to this please see that Bring4th is additionally a sister site to L/L Research. It seems that there is overwhelming support for The Study Guide as a result.

However, that said, this is why I opened with "unless I am mistaken" in my first sentence. Allow me to further close by suggesting that in honoring Don, Carla, and Jim whilst acknowledging Bob Childers, that this in no manner is a reflection on you. The entire thrust of my post was directed towards them. There was no accusation set forth or implied, as much as there was praise and honor given. I am sorry you read it this way or that it may have appeared so to you. Life in 3D is wonderful, isn't it? With this mind, please feel free to re-read my response and attempt to see it in the light it was meant to be delivered in. I am sure that you have as much deep admiration as is clearly now expressed and certainly set to rest. Thank you my friend.

Love and Light to you as well,

~ Q ~

[unity100]

You don't know if this was done by the original channelers (which I deeply respect) you only assume. Anyway, I find your answer very disrespectful since you are accusing me of disrespect apparently just for the fun of it and you are introducing a study guide which I cannot find sponsored by Carla and Jim (certainly not by Don Elkins --his name also appears on the title of the page). By the way I deeply respect Don Elkins and I feel much love for him --the PhD comment was directed to the compilation author as a general comment to address the fallacy "appeal to authority". I want to thank everybody who has tried is trying to impulse the LOO.

Love and light my friend.

so he was saying that we should use some other people's perspectives in learning the information we have been given via a channeling ?

and, the people who compiled that kind of guide happen to be bob geldof and david willcock ?

and also claiming to have been made by the channelers ?

leaving the fact that channelers, a working group, is a working group, and, their perspectives and insight is as valid and strong as any other person. since they are also entities incarnated behind a veil, even ... that should go without saying.

it seems like what lies underneath was not an appeal to authority, but a 'submit to authority', that would foster and coerce a certain perspective on others. in accordance with a certain perspective/look, that is being claimed to have come from the original source, but, somehow, 'explained and put forth' by certain people, including bob geldof and david willcock.

in my book, that has no difference than a religious approach to thought.

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

i wouldnt have noticed that if you havent expressed it tho. thanks.

Unity, I never said finites do not exist... Try to understand what I am saying here. I called them as real as tables and chairs... That doesn't mean they're not illusions. It means they only exist from a perspective. Change your perspective and change those things. The thing that doesn't change when you change perspective is the thing more real than reality itself. IAM..

well, a few discussions ago you were saying they dont exist. thats progress methinks.

and again this illusion thing ... there is no such 'non' thing called 'illusion'. illusion itself, is a concept that EXISTS within infinity.

and, there is no other 'reality' of finites existing other than this. this, what we see here, and what you dub as 'illusion' IS the real concept of finites existing. this is what finites are, at this moment, this is what existing is, at this moment. there is no illusion.

the fact that, when time passes and things change, what one will be seeing will be a different arrangement of energies and manifestations, does not change the fact that, there HAD existed a different arrangement and flow of energies, in the form of finites, before. it WAS real, and also is real, when you go back in time, still.

and 'perspective' thing.

if you look at the existence from the perspective of infinite, everything will be still.

however, in that stillness, infinite variations, existences, manifestations, intelligences, and things and concepts we dont know yet, exist.

this is what im saying.

if you go to octave density, and see the coalescing of entire spiritual mass in this octave in a central sun, and see it as a single ball of 'light', uniform, seeming as 'single' and 'one', that will not change the fact that, ALL the finites you have perceived before, STILL do exist, but, they are harmonized and existing within that ball of light you are perceiving.

something being harmonized nearing to infinity does not mean that the differentiations, different characteristics and elements within it, does not exist.

they still do exist. and, in the next octave, they will again spread out, and create differentiations and refractions, according to their nature.

...........

seeing, ovserbing a statue, going around from its nose to its ass, walking a towards his legs, looking at it, then walking away a few miles, then seeing it to be small, then going to a hilltop outside the city and seeing the city from afar and not perceiving the statue from that distance, and saying 'oh hey - it was a city all along, everything was that city', does NOT mean that the statue there, although now meshed with the city you see in front of you from that distance, now doesnt exist.

[Ali Quadir]

Unity, I never said finites do not exist... Try to understand what I am saying here. I called them as real as tables and chairs... That doesn't mean they're not illusions. It means they only exist from a perspective. Change your perspective and change those things. The thing that doesn't change when you change perspective is the thing more real than reality itself. IAM..

well, a few discussions ago you were saying they dont exist. thats progress methinks.

No I have not... More evidence that you don't listen. I have been trying to explain the exact same thing to you before. Because it's always what we boil down too...

You do not seem to even be attempting to understand another's point of view. You got your own idea and everything anyone else says is either evidence to support your idea or it is nonsense. Even Ra seems to fall in the role of supporting your point of view. Because dude, he's not saying what you think he is saying.

Calling An appeal to authority submitting to authority is pretty lame. You're again spinning and changing other peoples argument to mean what you want it to mean. Everything has to be what you want it to be..

Control issues?

This discussion is over.

[unity100]

No I have not... More evidence that you don't listen. I have been trying to explain the exact same thing to you before. Because it's always what we boil down too...

was it ? you were arguing to the point that EVERYthing was an illusion, and, you were EVERYthing, in actuality. you have challenged the very 'existence' concept of everything, but the one single entity you were proposing too.

You do not seem to even be attempting to understand another's point of view. You got your own idea and everything anyone else says is either evidence to support your idea or it is nonsense. Even Ra seems to fall in the role of supporting your point of view. Because dude, he's not saying what you think he is saying.

i cant even understand what the above means.

Calling An appeal to authority submitting to authority is pretty lame. You're again spinning and changing other peoples argument to mean what you want it to mean. Everything has to be what you want it to be..

Control issues?

This discussion is over.

control issues is bringing some external, 3rd party source 'explaining' a channeled material, and then expecting people to abide by it, and claim that anyone who doesnt think according to that 3rd party source, does not understand, and therefore is not 'scholarly'.

[βαθμιαίος]

Because it's always what we boil down too...

Exactly. Unity100, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that in your metaphysics we boil down to discrete, finite units. Correct?

You do not seem to even be attempting to understand another's point of view. You got your own idea and everything anyone else says is either evidence to support your idea or it is nonsense. Even Ra seems to fall in the role of supporting your point of view. Because dude, he's not saying what you think he is saying.

i cant even understand what the above means.

Seems pretty clear to me.

I'm wondering, unity100, if anything anyone has posted on here has ever changed your mind about anything?

[Ali Quadir]

was it ? you were arguing to the point that EVERYthing was an illusion, and, you were EVERYthing, in actuality. you have challenged the very 'existence' concept of everything, but the one single entity you were proposing too.

I've been in a museum once as a kid where they put up straw men. In all kinds of positions. Arguing, playing, generally being goofy... I loved it... Talking to you takes me back there.. I keep seeing straw men. Just about everywhere... Goofy ones too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy

[unity100]

Exactly. Unity100, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that in your metaphysics we boil down to discrete, finite units. Correct?

as far as what i understand, there can be neither total discreteness, or, total uniformness.

i understand it, like bumps, portrusions of 'waves' that happen to be on the surface of a flat body of water. each bump, portrusion, is, a discreteness. the level of discreteness may be high, or low. can increase, or decrease. can take numerous forms. they can even portrude downwards, like a hole.

and there is uniformity in still parts. the still parts may become bumpy, then again can go still. it can ever change.

logically, since all these upward and downward portrusions and stillness are coming into being from, and connected to the same stillness (the body of water), it could be said that those differentiations do not exist. logically as such indeed.

but. the thing is the concept of 'existing', is only as much as these portrusions happen. ie, something 'exists' because it portrudes from the stillness, and this is called 'existing'. and because no other concept of existing other than this exists, it is inevitable but to name these portrusions as existing. because, this is what existing is.

so, this is the multiple-beingness we are exploring, as an analogy. observing the concept of negative polarity, i think that total discreteness was attempted in this octave. ie, a portrusion totally leaving the body of water. but, since we know that that path has to return to the other one in early 6d, it is apparent that, a total portrusion, discreteness, cant happen.

that means that, the existence is both uniform and connected, and discrete at the same time.

in this manner, discreteness exist, and we are all discrete, as with ANYthing that exists. they are all deviations from stillness.

in another respect, all constitute the same body of water, and never totally become discrete, and also continually change, getting affected by each other. so, we are not discrete

duality.

You do not seem to even be attempting to understand another's point of view. You got your own idea and everything anyone else says is either evidence to support your idea or it is nonsense. Even Ra seems to fall in the role of supporting your point of view. Because dude, he's not saying what you think he is saying.

i cant even understand what the above means.

Seems pretty clear to me.

I'm wondering, unity100, if anything anyone has posted on here has ever changed your mind about anything?

that has happened with a number of intricate details i have missed to consider.

however what is more important is, a lot of what we are discussing here, and what i am proposing and describing, have occurred to me as the discussions go by. it feels like they were all waiting at the back of my head, waiting, me being unconscious of them, and they spill out when someone challenges something i said. some, i was aware subtly, occasionally coming up in the 'discussions' that go about at the back of my mind. i have accentuated some of them before participating in here. but a lot, have spilled into words and concrete thought and speech, during these discussions.

edit : there is also the feeling of them being 'manifested' as a 'knowing', as if someone talking them, but, more like 'mutually common knowledge revealing' thing, rather than waiting at the back of my unconscious

was it ? you were arguing to the point that EVERYthing was an illusion, and, you were EVERYthing, in actuality. you have challenged the very 'existence' concept of everything, but the one single entity you were proposing too.

I've been in a museum once as a kid where they put up straw men. In all kinds of positions. Arguing, playing, generally being goofy... I loved it... Talking to you takes me back there.. I keep seeing straw men. Just about everywhere... Goofy ones too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy

im content that you object to my above proposition. and because of that, i dont care if you call it a straw man. so be it. ill refer to this post if needed in future.

[βαθμιαίος]

Do you understand the individualized portions, the discretenesses, to persevere through the timeless phase at the end of the octave when all coalesces?

[unity100]

i very much think that they do. because, for they to come into being in any given octave, they (or whatever causing them to exist) had to exist before the octave in the first place.

also, if as such, it explains the concept of 'focus' and, 'infinite intelligence finding focus, and becoming creator' concepts we are given by Ra; there is stillness in timeless phase, yet, at the start of an octave, the stillness finds a focus point that generates differentiation, bump, a wave, and this focus keep vibrating, distorting, and with its ripples, lesser focuses that are nearby that focus (in any sense possible of being near, or relevant) also appear. and they, in turn generate more vibrations, and the ripples/vibrations they are sending, find lesser focuses, and hence an entire existence comes into being. this also explains the infinite 'co-creator' sequence that goes from the first initial focus, down to thought forms (and probably even deeper). it also explains how everything, conceptually, are the same and have the same basic blueprint (metaphorically) ; we are all ripples/waves vibrating in the stillness of a sea.

the only thing to be discerned here is, does there have to be one first focus, one first 'creator', or, are these focuses (for each individual octave) are more than one, for each octave. and, the central focuses for each octave - are they just 'future' manifestations of an earlier octave's first focus, or, are they timeless, direct manifestations of infinite intelligence.

a possibility is, the focuses (existing ones, finites, the entire consciousness furball they - us- constitute) go from focus to focus, octave to octave.

so, they are independent of each other in a sense that, they can move like the ripples on a sea surface. another possibility is, all the manifesting focuses in an octave, are actually interconnected, and they focus on a central point, manifest in an octave, then coalesce, and then keep existing timeless until they find another focus, together.

intermediate possibilities also can exist - it could be possible that, just like how an entity can change the planets it incarnates, the focuses participating in an octave may join/leave an octave group, ie, a focus group. or then again, they may be tied to and dependent on each other for existence.

[Quantum]

i very much think that they do. because, for they to come into being in any given octave, they (or whatever causing them to exist) had to exist before the octave in the first place.

also,if as such, it explains the concept of 'focus' and, 'infinite intelligence finding focus, and becoming creator' concepts we are given by Ra; there is stillness in timeless phase, yet, at the start of an octave, the stillness finds a focus point that generates differentiation, bump, a wave, and this focus keep vibrating, distorting, and with its ripples, lesser focuses that are nearby that focus (in any sense possible of being near, or relevant) also appear. and they, in turn generate more vibrations, and the ripples/vibrations they are sending, find lesser focuses, and hence an entire existence comes into being. this also explains the infinite 'co-creator' sequence that goes from the first initial focus, down to thought forms (and probably even deeper). it also explains how everything, conceptually, are the same and have the same basic blueprint (metaphorically) ; we are all ripples/waves vibrating in the stillness of a sea.

a possibility is, the focuses (existing ones, finites, the entire consciousness furball they - us- constitute) go from focus to focus, octave to octave.

intermediate possibilities also can exist - it could be possible that, just like how an entity can change the planets it incarnates, the focuses participating in an octave may join/leave an octave group, ie, a focus group. or then again, they may be tied to and dependent on each other for existence.

I very much like the manner in which you have rephrased all of the above sentiments (as seen in red/bold) in propositional form versus what was previously laid out as grand and sweeping contradictions as though adamant truths and concrete laws which only you were privy to. In other words, you are now asking questions and presenting possibilities as opposed heretofore of making statements that were previously presented as though absolutes which no one in fact has the capacity of knowing. Its the tone that makes the music. Well done.

this also explains the infinite 'co-creator' sequence that goes from the first initial focus, down to thought forms (and probably even deeper).

the only thing to be discerned here is, does there have to be one first focus, one first 'creator', or, are these focuses (for each individual octave) are more than one, for each octave. and, the central focuses for each octave - are they just 'future' manifestations of an earlier octave's first focus, or, are they timeless, direct manifestations of infinite intelligence.

Given you are in fact making propositions, and doing so by putting them out there in question form, my only friendly question and challenge in an open and like-minded academic exchange would be, your Infinite Co-Creator term. This is a new one. Do you mean to mingle this term infinite co-creator with that of The One Infinite Creator, or are these in fact separate terms? Are you in fact asking if there were Multiple Infinite Co-Creators which presumably manifested from Infinity Unaware, which became aware? If the latter is the case, then once again you are individuating Infinity before Infinity has even individuated, as if separating that which is inseparable, aka Infinity now aware as the One Infinite Creator?

Thank you for the new music. I hope it is intentional, as it plays so much more harmoniously and melodic. If it is intentional, you have un-boxed yourself out of the corner from which you almost had no choice but to defend yourself from so vehemently. Perhaps we may return to the open like-minded academic exchanges of questions versus truths we do not know.

as Sincerely,

~ Q ~

[unity100]

there is no change in my behavior, or my speech. things, that i see as would be exceedingly evident to any serious seeker, and happen to be evident conclusions, i use sweeping statements. things, that i am pondering yet, i use the 'possibility' wordage. there has been no change in my behavior in that regard. not to mention that i have never felt the need to defend MYSELF so vehemently. we are discussing here, not attacking each others' personalities. the subtle usage of words in your post further reinforces my impression that you see discussions as battles, fencing, sport. it feels as if you are thinking the perceived 'change in tone' you think to be is due to some kind of 'pressure' applied to the other person due to which s/he felt the need to 'defend' himself/herself. not to mention that despite your posts were left unreplied, you attribute contradictions to the other person still. being unwilling to consider other possibilities than the preferred belief one has in mind, and selectively ignore/reinterpret concepts to fit one's own belief, does not make what the other person say a 'contradiction'.

we cannot resume an 'academic' exchange with you. i have been waiting for your response to recent posts, in order to see whether you may be letting go of battle-like approach to discussions, and your extreme sensitivity on 'one single god' concept. i see that neither have even softened up. at this state, there is no means that we can have a productive discussion with you.

pursuit of the spirit is not scholarly. it is not academic either. neither faculties of mind have any need for such earthly concoctions. neither am i interested in proof/disproof of a one all-powerful god. therefore, at this final juncture, i am choosing to skip corresponding with you. i wish you a good day.

[Quantum]

there is no change in my behavior, or my speech. things, that i see as would be exceedingly evident to any serious seeker, and happen to be evident conclusions, i use sweeping statements. things, that i am pondering yet, i use the 'possibility' wordage. there has been no change in my behavior in that regard. not to mention that i have never felt the need to defend MYSELF so vehemently. we are discussing here, not attacking each others' personalities. the subtle usage of words in your post further reinforces my impression that you see discussions as battles, fencing, sport. it feels as if you are thinking the perceived 'change in tone' you think to be is due to some kind of 'pressure' applied to the other person due to which s/he felt the need to 'defend' himself/herself. not to mention that despite your posts were left unreplied, you attribute contradictions to the other person still. being unwilling to consider other possibilities than the preferred belief one has in mind, and selectively ignore/reinterpret concepts to fit one's own belief, does not make what the other person say a 'contradiction'.

we cannot resume an 'academic' exchange with you. i have been waiting for your response to recent posts, in order to see whether you may be letting go of battle-like approach to discussions, and your extreme sensitivity on 'one single god' concept. i see that neither have even softened up. at this state, there is no means that we can have a productive discussion with you.

pursuit of the spirit is not scholarly. it is not academic either. neither faculties of mind have any need for such earthly concoctions. neither am i interested in proof/disproof of a one all-powerful god. therefore, at this final juncture, i am choosing to skip corresponding with you. i wish you a good day.

Unity,

I really truly meant a compliment to you. If it is kicked to the curb as has been my praises in other posts it is yours to do. I've attempted humor, praise, and teasing, even addressed you as my friend in closing, while always sticking to an academic attempt to uncover and learn more. You've rejected all of them. Your very serious to be sure....and I'm sure that's good for you. Can I invite you to have some more fun though? I shall reword my entire post for you in one sentence? Lets try it this way:

Unity, I very much liked the verbiage of your most recent post.

It seemed to me that you've been challenged quite a bit as of late by an increasing number of participants. I assumed this might have been a reason for what I perceived to be the difference in your approach. I beg your indulgence and excuse myself. My bad. It may be a good thing as you bring a bit of edge and controversy to the table. It is not for me to judge. Surely you must be cognizant of the fact that your views are unique?

As to my sport, I've already fully admitted in your last statement with respect to the same that for me the forum is an opportunity to be challenged, as much as to challenge, all towards the effort of sharpening our understanding. I've asked if this isn't the reason we're here? I've been clear. Yes, its fun. Yes, I revel in it. Yes, I enjoy it. Yes, I like it. Yes, its as much sport as it is serious.

As for posts you suggest several times here that you've put to me that were left unanswered? My great apologies if I've ever left even one unanswered. It seems like it has been me that has repeatedly openly invited you to answer? Ive read many times that you refuse to post to me (other than these personal posts it seems). Please re-direct me to any unanswered post and I would be more than happy to respond.

As for my sensitivity to "The One Infinite Creator" term and concept. I assure you, I question IT's sensitivity regularly (c'mon, that's a good joke). I've already addressed that I take as little credit for the view as I do for having coined the term. It is chalked full in the LOO. I do however support it...and IT... so that the record is clear.


I openly stated I am willing. I've openly stated I mean you no harm nor any injury. Many times in fact. But if your views are as unique as yours are, or seem to be, then be as open to them being as questioned and as challenged and allow the injury to drop. I've repeated this as well. I've utilized the Ra Material entirely versus my personal opinion in every single response without exception. I would be remiss if I did not respond by suggesting that I found it extremely curious, if not as interesting, that you accused me of "sticking to the book" as a response in another post? Let me be as clear in closing that I am indeed here for the LOO exclusively versus expressing my own opinions on esoterica. I confess that you will as a result perhaps continue to find me difficult to your posts for this given my penchant for "sticking to the book."

I leave my question open as to your last post as regards the concept of Multiple One Infinite Co-Creators? It is as interesting a concept and as unique as have been many of your others, for which I would ask the same, "sticking to the book of course," where in the LOO might you have arrived at this? Given this is a forum to further our understanding of the LOO, can you, would you, provide evidence of a single quote we might review?

Peace my friend, and feel free to redirect me to those unanswered posts I apologize for not answering. I'm sure I would be more than happy to.

Love and Light...

~ Q ~

[unity100]

I've attempted humor, praise, and teasing, even addressed you as my friend in closing, while always sticking to an academic attempt to uncover and learn more. You've rejected all of them. Your very serious to be sure....and I'm sure that's good for you. Can I invite you to have some more fun though?

intent is much more important than the form.

It seemed to me that you've been challenged quite a bit as of late by an increasing number of participants. I assumed this might have been a reason for what I perceived to be the difference in your approach. I beg your indulgence and excuse myself. My bad. It may be a good thing as you bring a bit of edge and controversy to the table. It is not for me to judge. Surely you must be cognizant of the fact that your views are unique?

my views are not unique. somewhere, someone, some entities, before me have thought these, and knew these. such views being expressed in words in this forum, or any other particular common area that people access to, may be low. but, that doesnt make those views unique.

As to my sport, I've already fully admitted in your last statement with respect to the same that for me the forum is an opportunity to be challenged, as much as to challenge, all towards the effort of sharpening our understanding. I've asked if this isn't the reason we're here? I've been clear. Yes, its fun. Yes, I revel in it. Yes, I enjoy it. Yes, I like it. Yes, its as much sport as it is serious.

that part is why i am not answering you in discussions. and the underlined part is also why i am replying to your this particular post, despite i am not engaging in discussions with you.

my opinion is, you should let go of that 'sport', that 'fun', that 'enjoyment', that 'revelation'. it makes discussing with you an unproductive, undesirable experience. it even causes you to go rather condescending, aggressive, patronizing toward personalities of your 'opponents', very frequently. you go to lengths of giving tirades that take the form of 'your arguments are untenable. your arguments are undefendable', like in a post you have made in an earlier thread, in exact words. the final point that could reach would be you adding 'you are null and void' sentence to those tirades. but thankfully, it stops before that point. that shows how badly you 'like' this 'sport'.

these acts being in the form of an excessively emphasized form of formal correspondence, various 'compliments' being dropped here and there - honest or lip service -, does not change the experience of the person on the other side of monitor. it discourages them from discussing with you.

together-thinking is not a competition. its not a 'battle of wits'. its not something that entities undo each other and something wins. everything is put into the table, and entities take whatever they want from among them. nothing has to be complete or perfect. nothing has to be discredited, 'undone', or 'bested'. there are no authorities in this. noone can claim or appeal to authority.

As for posts you suggest several times here that you've put to me that were left unanswered? My great apologies if I've ever left even one unanswered. It seems like it has been me that has repeatedly openly invited you to answer? Ive read many times that you refuse to post to me (other than these personal posts it seems). Please re-direct me to any unanswered post and I would be more than happy to respond.

i have said that i have left your posts unanswered, due to reasons above. i cant think that you havent been able to understand that clearly. i cant imagine how you can confuse what i said, with what you understood above. you either skimmed, and misread it, again, or you are again deliberately 'not understanding' something you dont desire to understand.

I openly stated I am willing. I've openly stated I mean you no harm nor any injury. Many times in fact. But if your views are as unique as yours are, or seem to be, then be as open to them being as questioned and as challenged and allow the injury to drop. I've repeated this as well.

there have been many occasions in which, me, leave aside my views, have been challenged to the point of impliedly calling me a self-serving entity. i havent ceased responding to anyone's post despite those circumstances. the sole reason im not discussing with you, is the bits above regarding the 'sport' of discussion, and the extent it takes you -> to unproductive and condescending depths.

i actually generally ignore even condescending or aggressive manners, as long as things are productive. but, in the engagement of this 'thrilling' 'discussion sport' you openly declare that you like so much, you are going to the lengths of selectively ignoring material that does not serve your 'team', or incessantly repeating the same thing in differently phrased and poised paragraphs.

as a result discussions go nowhere.

I've utilized the Ra Material entirely versus my personal opinion in every single response without exception. I would be remiss if I did not respond by suggesting that I found it extremely curious, if not as interesting, that you accused me of "sticking to the book" as a response in another post? Let me be as clear in closing that I am indeed here for the LOO exclusively versus expressing my own opinions on esoterica. I confess that you will as a result perhaps continue to find me difficult to your posts for this given my penchant for "sticking to the book."

the waters we discuss in, are not given to us in clear, defined fixed terms and concepts in Ra material. and, as i mentioned before, after a point, these are left to the adept's free will, because they dont want to interfere. (for things regarding 7d and on).

therefore, anyone's interpretation, is as valid as the others'. and, if someone comes at this point, and interprets things in such a fashion, then comes and calls everyone to 'abide by the material', that happens to be 'abiding by the book' in a religious sense. despite that what is being called for, happens to be particular interpretation of the concept by one's own, or others. this especially takes an even more serious form when someone also employs 3rd parties' or entities' interpretations to support that interpretation. as in bob geldof & david willcock and the study guide case.

that is what i call 'calling to abiding by the book', and this is what made religions to pop on the face of this planet. attributing modern 'scholarly' or 'academic' tags to this approach, will not change the mechanic.

I leave my question open as to your last post as regards the concept of Multiple One Infinite Co-Creators? It is as interesting a concept and as unique as have been many of your others, for which I would ask the same, "sticking to the book of course," where in the LOO might you have arrived at this? Given this is a forum to further our understanding of the LOO, can you, would you, provide evidence of a single quote we might review?

due to the above reasons regarding 'sport of discussion', i wont be replying to that above block. thankfully, probably some others will pose that question, and a discussion may unfold, albeit, unfortunately not with you.

im not interested in a 'thrilling' 'sport' of discussion. im not here for sports or enjoyment.

such a waste though, since you are an attentive person, and productive results could have ensued. however, all that attention is being wasted in the practice and enjoyment of a discussion 'sport'.

if your approach to co-thinking changes, i may consider discussing with you. however at this point, it seems quite far off.

[βαθμιαίος]

i very much think that they do. because, for they to come into being in any given octave, they (or whatever causing them to exist) had to exist before the octave in the first place.

This is intriguing but it conflicts with my understanding of Ra's description of the merging back into the Creator. ("At the seventh level or dimension, we shall, if our humble efforts are sufficient, become one with all, thus having no memory, no identity, no past or future, but existing in the all.") Do you feel that this idea is supported by the Ra material?