______

[Infinite Unity]

So, are you implying that to love another is real and to love self is not real?  (I'll just assume "not.")  To love another is to assume duality which is also "not," no?  In other words, both loves are distortions of unity, just different flavors of such.  (Not sure how you can "learn from" a flavor, but that's another question.  Maybe, it's best simply experienced?)

The philosophical point I'm exploring can be described as the teleology of spiritual evolution, the "why" of this illusion of separation.  Infinity being infinite, nothing can exist that is not contained within that infinity.  So the issue is what it is about experience of separation in some of the forms you describe -- both positive and negative -- that makes's the Creator's foray into separateness valuable or necessary in some way that wasn't already part of that infinity?

In many cases the Confederation have described the Creator's ultimate goal as "knowing itself" or learning about itself in some way.  The mystery, to me, is how something that is already infinite could have more of anything, whether that be knowledge, understanding, appreciation, etc.  A goal implies a lack to be filled, and infinity cannot lack anything by definition.

I think the reason I think about this question in particular is that it exposes a difference between A Course in Miracles and Confederation philosophy.  ACIM tends to paint a lot of the illusion of separation as objectionable precisely because it is not part of "what is real", in other words "that which is not".  It literally says that any sort of negativity is not real and that we must wake up from the dream in which we believe it's real.  However, the Confederation paints a picture where the illusion of separation somehow teaches or augments the Creator through some sort of evolutionary sequence of distilled experiences.

I'm not losing any sleep over any of this, Peregrine.

the sheer "influence" or majesty of LOVE itself is the only explainable, yet still remaining unexplainable conundrum of a answer. If it raises above yet a whisper, it escapes through your hands as if sand. It cannot be grasped, only felt, only experienced. What you see moving, is moved by the mover(Love). What is moved is Love. Entities are like geographical forms, in that. there are valleys, summits, and peaks. there are shallow, intimate, and deep people. They all have there part in forming the creation itself. If all people were the same, you could expect the whole ocean to be the exact same depth throughout. You can see in a geographical manner, how just as the aforementioned valleys, summits, and peaks. Are just like the cycles that entites go through. However is that surprising...as they we, are all entities. We are all focuses of The Creator, and in my opinion, being a focus. Is more to say you are focus, and that you focus on what you want brought forth from Infinity into the Creation. That is your perfection, that is all are fruit. We bring forth from Infinity, were there are no limits.

In my opinion Infinity is lonely, and Creation is like a quilt. Were Infinity is brought in at focus amounts. Were the creator has a place of manyness. that in itself because of the sheer infinity of Infinity. It itself is Infinite. yet still Finite. Entites and there fruits and unity. Speaks volumes of Infinity or singularity in my opinion. Or Oneness. Or in other words, the only thing Infinity can remember or focus on is you. you son of a b****!=)

I agree with the superposition, that the creator is inert. In that the Creator is not driven, or wired like a MBS complex. It is so about love, and beyond how we conceputelize is to see it as inert. Yet all things flow, and find form from the inert.

[anagogy]

The philosophical point I'm exploring can be described as the teleology of spiritual evolution, the "why" of this illusion of separation.  Infinity being infinite, nothing can exist that is not contained within that infinity.  So the issue is what it is about experience of separation in some of the forms you describe -- both positive and negative -- that makes's the Creator's foray into separateness valuable or necessary in some way that wasn't already part of that infinity?

In many cases the Confederation have described the Creator's ultimate goal as "knowing itself" or learning about itself in some way.  The mystery, to me, is how something that is already infinite could have more of anything, whether that be knowledge, understanding, appreciation, etc.  A goal implies a lack to be filled, and infinity cannot lack anything by definition.

I think you're absolutely correct that infinity contains all. The real problem here is words, and human conceptions and conventions, which cannot adequately express the absolute in a cogent or articulate way, without significant distortion. But these are the pointers we have to work with.

The understanding that was offered to me, by my teachers, is that the foray into illusion doesn't increase infinity at all. Rather, the foray, itself, is simply an always existing component of that infinity. If you can imagine infinity (a difficult prospect indeed), try to imagine what it is like to 'know everything' to know 'all possibilities' in an eternally existing present. This intelligent infinity even knows what it is like to 'not know' everything. Omniscience is a mind boggling prospect to conceive of, and the staggering array of configurations it comprises -- the infinite possibilities and play of shadow and light. We confuse this vibratory configuration, or reverberating pattern in consciousness (which is necessarily predicated on separation) as our illusory separate existence, simply due to identification. We confuse the infinity "knowing" what it is like to be separate, as actual separation. As Ra said, it is chosen by each of us as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought that binds all things.

So really, you can only look at infinity in terms of identification. The infinity looks different at every level of identification. These levels of identification are the densities, or colors, of the infinite light as it eternally radiates from the core of truth (that which is) outwards towards the void of falsity (that which is not).

At the broadest level of identification (or non-identification) -- the level of 8th density, absolutely nothing is 'happening'. It is changeless, undifferentiated, and always will be. It is simply just infinity -- the Beingness that contains all possible configurations of light and energy. Anything below that involves some level of identification with one of these levels of 'knowingness'. (knowingness is the level below Beingness -- which is the realm of mind) It is not nothingness, but it *IS* No-Thing-Ness. It is the level of Ain, in Kabbalistic terminology -- the level of absolute non-differentiation.

Why does identification happen? (of course it should be inserted here we can only speak of 'happening' below the 8th level) I think it is no different than the question of: why do ice crystals form in cold water? It is simply just nature. As the infinite continuum of consciousness, which comprises the infinitely and eternally existing spectrum of possibilities ranging from perfect truth (that which is) to the twilight of distortion that comprises the possibilities of infinite falsity (that which is not), the consciousness naturally forms 'identities', just like the ice crystals naturally, and impersonally, forms in cold water. The mind at these colder levels of consciousness is naturally inclined to "freeze" into perspectives or "identities". This causes fragments of consciousness to seemingly splinter off from the One, which then requires 'melting' (again, merely from their vantage point).

I think it is just a cosmic and indifferent eternal process, which we then impart various divine creationary narratives to (which are not completely false btw). I don't know if this helps you at all. I'm merely sharing what I've learned. I know the feeling of yearning for this understanding.  

[unity100]

The understanding that was offered to me, by my teachers, is that the foray into illusion doesn't increase infinity at all. Rather, the foray, itself, is simply an always existing component of that infinity. If you can imagine infinity (a difficult prospect indeed), try to imagine what it is like to 'know everything' to know 'all possibilities' in an eternally existing present.

That is indeed axiom-wise so, however:

This intelligent infinity even knows what it is like to 'not know' everything

Note the adjective there. There is an adjective, an identifier.

Meaning, Intelligent infinity is not infinite in actuality.

It is infinite in every aspect, except whatever it was parted from, whatever makes it 'un-intelligent' so that the intelligent infinity and its counterpart are combined to infinity, which is indescribable, inexplicable, unfathomable.

Level 0 - Infinity
Level 1 - Intelligent infinity and its counterpart, potentially 'un-intelligent' infinity
Level 2 and on - Everything else

Its not too hard to conceive, actually. This un-intelligent infinity is possibly akin to subconscious, or female principle, which contains every potential happening that can happen, every potential state that can be had. And intelligent infinity is the one which knows these through experiencing them in infinite creations. Though a strict separation in male-female sense may be a stretch, as intelligent infinity and its counterpart would be infinitely more balanced and close than what we would call male and female.

Its a separation of two parts, just like everything else.

There is nothing that can be done about infinity, there is nothing that infinity does, there is nothing that infinity needs to do, or actually can do. Infinity is just infinite. One can consider it neutral, inert, or even irrelevant for all intents and purposes, because it is a state that is fully, ultimately balanced.

In ultimate balance there is only silence, to put into our words of this world.

[loostudent]

What about Ra validating equally both the positive and the negative path when our greatest teachers such as Buddha and Jesus only approved the positive path.

Some more words on this. I was very surprised when I first read about negative harvest and graduation to 4d and 5d negative. To teachers like Jesus only positive path is valid and salvific despite teaching that perfect love is also toward negative people. Negative action or sin in some languages literally means "to miss the mark". Negativity is usually not seen as success in spiritual advancement but rather a perversion, a side way, a sickness, something that has to be redeemed ... "For this ye know of a surety, that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." (Ef 5,5)

Ra on the contrary: "The distortion lies in the fact that those who seek to serve the self are seen by the Law of One as precisely the same as those who seek to serve others, for are all not one? To serve yourself and to serve other is a dual method of saying the same thing, if you can understand the essence of the Law of One."

As I see it positive orientation is see(k)ing the truth - the One Creator in everything. The Creation is revealing (not just hidding) the Mystery. It is not the Truth itself but it originates and resides in Truth and the Truth can shine throught it. Permanent and real life stems from communion with Truth. Negativity is the path of lie. It is seeking life in separation from Creator but this is not possible. Satan is also called "the father of lies".

[GentleWanderer]

_______

[Ankh]

Before december 2012, many believed the physical harvest was near and it was time to make the choice between sto , sts or indifference. Carla, S. Mandelker, D. Wilcock and many more had this opinion. They said to have all the evidence, scientific, some old texts, some quotes from the LOO.

Would you, please, quote the above mentioned entities where they quote Ra and directly from this draw a conclusion where they find evidence for this 2012 harvest?

Do you think we have learned the lesson from this mistake ?

Would you, please, be more specific by what you mean in the above sentence by "mistake"?

Are we able to discriminate between what we known for sure vs what we take on faith vs some interpretation we make from a text  ?

All of us are able to do this, but would we, on the other hand, do this without a veil or doubt, then there wouldn't be any value to this particular moment.

[rva_jeremy]

We confuse the infinity "knowing" what it is like to be separate, as actual separation.

The approach you describe is basically where I've been slowly, slowly heading in my thinking: that the experience of separation is not some anomalous, "bad" deviation from "good" unity, but is instead merely a feature of foreverness we experience in a novel manner as a consequence of the vantage point that this peculiar thing, individuated attention, affords us.  To put it pithily: experience is infinity projected into time and space. Anagogy, your explanation is so concise and comprehensive -- I applaud you!

There's a normative aspect in this cosmology of which I think I need to prepare myself to let go or reimagine in some way.  I'm kind of shocked that after so long studying Confederation philosophy, I still have this manichean, caveman concept of "UNITY, GOOD! SEPARATION, BAD!"  Of course it's more elegant to think of the individual life as just part of a single phenomenon, elongated and potentiated by time and space.  There was a philosophical essay I was reading that described the concept of dimensional space as a "medium of particularity" (in the Hegelian, dialectical sense of individual/particular/universal), and I think this really captures the function well.

What is challenging about this perspective might be its least abstract but most personal consequence: it necessarily throws into stark relief the character of the ego, for lack of a better label for that part of our experience that seeks a meaning on its own, particular terms.  I'm starting to wonder whether this isn't exactly what Buddhist thinkers mean when they say there is no fundamental ground available to us: the part of us that seeks security, stability, satisfaction, comfort, etc. is really pretty meaningless juxtaposed with more infinite concerns, hence the spiritual path pushing the individual away from ego identification towards something that participates more directly in the real teleologically meaningful direction.  It doesn't change the nature of individual experience; it merely changes how it is appraised.

Richard Dawkins wrote a book called The Selfish Gene in which he introduced this idea of life writ large as merely a vehicle for genes to reproduce; that genes were the real "players" in life, cells, plants, animals, consciousness, etc. all being evolutionary adaptations that help genes survive and thrive.  I sort of feel myself pulled in this direction, but from the metaphysical direction: that our individual consciousness is a kind of meta-phenomenon merely facilitating or existing as a consequence of the Creator's timeless process, projected into space and time.  So there is no cosmologically sound explanation that will ever satisfy the ego, because the ego is not really the beneficiary of experience but merely the means to it.

Finally, I think this is precisely what often bugs people about Confederation philosophy: that we, the kinds of people at the level of consciousness where we're reading this post, having these human experiences, living our lives on socially normative terms, no matter how much we might believe in a greater reality, we really crave some meaning to this particular experience in terms that apply and resonate within the experience itself.  We can have that--we can talk about lessons, catalyst, Wanderers, etc. in ways that we can reason about and make sense of our daily lives around--but beyond a certain level of thinking, everything points to a greater cosmological process that the ego does not participate in so much as plays the role of a vehicle for it.  That can be very disturbing for people, but its certainly worth meditating on.

Thank you to everybody indulging me in this thinking, it is a tremendous comfort to me (yes, the ego me) to be able to share these thoughts.  Thanks especially to anagogy for the generous and sympathetic response.  Please forgive any clumsiness in the writing above.

[GentleWanderer]

_______

[unity100]

"UNITY, GOOD! SEPARATION, BAD!"

unity and separation exist inside infinity. one cannot happen without the other.

Infinite intelligence can easily be called a collective unified sea of infinite numbers of finite entities. they are also separate, but they are also united.

It is not 'I', but it is 'We'.

[GentleWanderer]

_______