Unity/Infinity/One

[ada]

My current 'life' philosophy(no different than your own), be it right/wrong I will share regardless for we are one.
I want to point out once again that my ability to express is very limited and the language is also an issue, anyhow forgive my crippled methods of typing.

The title, it requires me to add everything in existence, and it still will not be enough, so lets just call it One. One has no beginning or an end, this means that we have no beginning or and end. The now we experience at this particular moment is exactly the same now that has always been going far back infinitely. We think of the universe/ourselves as something that started from a certain point when One has desired(I'm not saying that we started existing but rather the evolution we are going through as mind/body/spirit), but this is not so, because when you deal with infinity then as you know everything must exist always. This universe has existed ever since inside One, thus we are infinity in a sense that we are the infinite possibility/probability in One. I hope this makes some sense, I'm struggling to elaborate.

[Minyatur]

When we look outside ourselves, we are infinite potential gazing at its own infinite potential to be.

[Plenum]

there is only one Sovereign, no?

[anagogy]

My current 'life' philosophy(no different than your own), be it right/wrong I will share regardless for we are one.
I want to point out once again that my ability to express is very limited and the language is also an issue, anyhow forgive my crippled methods of typing.

The title, it requires me to add everything in existence, and it still will not be enough, so lets just call it One. One has no beginning or an end, this means that we have no beginning or and end. The now we experience at this particular moment is exactly the same now that has always been going far back infinitely. We think of the universe/ourselves as something that started from a certain point when One has desired(I'm not saying that we started existing but rather the evolution we are going through as mind/body/spirit), but this is not so, because when you deal with infinity then as you know everything must exist always. This universe has existed ever since inside One, thus we are infinity in a sense that we are the infinite possibility/probability in One. I hope this makes some sense, I'm struggling to elaborate.

I couldn't agree more.

Yes, that is precisely it from my view as well. Nothing is actually physically, or nonphysically, 'moving' or 'changing' at the broadest and most awake level of infinity.

The continuum of consciousness (infinite intelligence), represented by the One, the Absolute, contains or embodies all potentiality. There is no difference between the 'probable' and the 'actual' in that unbounded essence (it is omniscience itself). The difference between those two concepts (real/unreal) only appears when duality is introduced by specific or particular identification which 'prisms' or fractures the clear 'light of truth' of the one, by seemingly directing a portion of that infinite attention into the illusion. All that happens is that awareness, which is existence itself, identifies with lower order realities or 'mental substrates' that represent a small portion of that infinite substance that has, is, and always will exist within the One. This results in a dream of individuate existence, which seems like an eternity to the dream character, but is not even happening from the standpoint of the Absolute. Though 'happening' is admittedly something of a misnomer most likely. In some sense it is, but really the more time goes on, Ra's word 'distortion' is the most accurate English word that I have found can be applied to the circumstances of what we think is "reality".

It is nothing but the play of light. An infinite dream within a dream within a dream within a dream.

"Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream,
Merrily merrily, merrily, merrily
Life is but a dream"

[AnthroHeart]

I still think that Infinity comes before awareness. Infinity existed without awareness, and then awareness came, and reflects infinity back on itself like shards of an infinite mirror.

[anagogy]

I still think that Infinity comes before awareness. Infinity existed without awareness, and then awareness came, and reflects infinity back on itself like shards of an infinite mirror.

That's interesting. That's the polar opposite of how I perceive it.  

My understanding is that nothing can exist without awareness there to perpetuate it's existence. If a tree falls in the forest and no consciousness is there to be aware of it, what is the difference between it happening and not happening? How would you measure its reality?   

Consciousness validates existence because it *IS* existence. To augment Descartes' famous statement, "I am aware, therefore I AM." Or we could just replicate the famous Bible quote: "I AM THAT I AM"

To me, infinity existing before awareness is sort of like nothingness existing before somethingness. It is a logical dead end or contradiction to me. From my vantage point, intelligence and consciousness are inseparable. One implies the other (I can't, of myself, honestly logically define them separately). So if the One Infinity is infinite intelligence, and always has been, then it should logically follow that is has always been conscious.

But if you have a different picture of the absolute, its all good. These are just answers which have made sense to me, personally, and I like to share them with others.

When Ra speaks of infinity becoming aware, I've always strongly felt they were implying 'self aware'. Essentially, when infinity became self aware it 'chose' to perceive its own infinite substance as a sort of "object". Doing this reflexively divides infinite subject from infinite object, or primal mind, from primal matter (I'm not talking about physical matter). In spirit, they are unified and indistinguishable. Mind is the portion of consciousness that "self reflects" the infinity of beingness, or spirit, as the exploration of finite material investiture. The whole reason creation continues indefinitely is because infinity, the unquantifiable, cannot be fully reflected in matter (primal object), it cannot be fully known or quantified, thus the material illusion of finite creation is free to continue in an eternal present.

I believe Seth said something similar in regards to one of the "creative dilemmas" of All That Is. He talked about how inner vitality desired to fully materialize itself, but was unable to, which led to action or creation.

The 'shards of broken mirror' you reference in my view is simply the individuate minds, reflecting the original mental reflection of the Logos, and with each increasing individuation another shard of broken mirror appears, holographically reflecting all light that touches it. Reflections, within reflections, within reflections. 

[AnthroHeart]

I learned what I did through:

https://www.youtube.com/user/BentinhoMassaro/videos

[anagogy]

I'm familiar with him (I've watched most of his stuff). He's a Law of One student. But no teacher has got the picture 100% perfect (myself obviously included). I guess what I'm saying is: never substitute another's intuition for your own. Only if it agrees with your own logic, and experiential evidence as well. You could be right. Who knows.

[AnthroHeart]

Thank you for answering quickly.

[anagogy]

Thank you for answering quickly.

[ada]

Anagogy, would you agree then, that this is not the only universe? (I do not mean parallel)

[anagogy]

Anagogy, would you agree then, that this is not the only universe? (I do not mean parallel)

Certainly.

[AnthroHeart]

Anagogy, would you agree then, that this is not the only universe? (I do not mean parallel)

Certainly.

Would you say that we are "lucky" to experience exactly what we do?

[anagogy]

Would you say that we are "lucky" to experience exactly what we do?

To be honest, I don't believe luck has much to do with it. It is a nice platitude, and certainly appreciation is a very valuable state of consciousness to cultivate, but everything happens because consciousness chooses it, and when things are working smoothly and harmoniously, consciousness chooses it because it desires it, and it desires it because it is the perfect reflection of its essence, or particular reflection of Source.

You see, we are not all reflecting the same aspects of the Logos. That's why everybody is different. But when you are living out a life of perfect resonance with the part you are trying to reflect, you will certainly FEEL like the luckiest person in the universe, and that is simply our divine heritage as extensions of a being of infinite worth.

[ada]

Anagogy, would you agree then, that this is not the only universe? (I do not mean parallel)

Certainly.

Would you say that we are "lucky" to experience exactly what we do?

I'd say that we are 'lucky' to find our brothers and sisters in this sorrow and confusion.

[anagogy]

I'd say that we are 'lucky' to find our brothers and sisters in this sorrow and confusion.

If you mean 'lucky' in the sense of its 'certainly a relief and a comfort', then I 100% agree.

But if we are talking about 'luck', in its literal interpretation, as a sort of favorable coincidence, then that is not the case from my perspective, as we simply attract all complimentary vibrations into our personal reality as we evolve and refine the consciousness of our spiritual vibration. When the student is ready, the teacher will appear because in unity, it cannot be any other way. And the same goes for the catalyst of karma, or spiritual lessons and interactions with other selves. In every moment, we are coalescing the elements of consciousness that will teach us what we need to learn to free our consciousness to inhabit a broader perspective.

[AnthroHeart]

But I was ready a year ago to meet the teacher that I currently have found. So it seems that the teacher doesn't appear when the student is ready.

[ada]

Yeah, should've used a different word. Anyhow, I am now certain that the One listens to every thought at every now, this is fascinating, I am literally speaking to the sky and recieving response.

[anagogy]

But I was ready a year ago to meet the teacher that I currently have found. So it seems that the teacher doesn't appear when the student is ready.

The 'readiness' I'm talking about is not something you consciously evaluate. It is determined by your vibration.

A homeless man might come up to me and say, "I was ready for gratuitious wealth a year ago, so why isn't it here?" But there isn't a poor man on earth that has an activated vibration of financial abundance. As your teacher that you are enamored with would say, "you can only be what you are". Your vibration is your vibration.

The moral of the story is: we don't really know what we are ready for or not ready for. We do not know what is necessary for us to see past a certain level of consciousness. This is the whole balancing process. We don't know, but the creator does. But blockages are like vacuums that 'suck in' catalyst into our experience.

[Night Owl]

Infinity is infinite in every direction, from every perspective. Is there more time, more space, more universes, more experiences? Yes there are. Infinite of them. Everything exist. That something would not exist is paradoxal to infinity. If you feel like something doesn't exist it simply has not yet happened in space/time or it is impossible to experience in our present configuration but there is a somewhere/sometime where that something exist.

[Aion]

I still think that Infinity comes before awareness. Infinity existed without awareness, and then awareness came, and reflects infinity back on itself like shards of an infinite mirror.

That's interesting. That's the polar opposite of how I perceive it.  

My understanding is that nothing can exist without awareness there to perpetuate it's existence. If a tree falls in the forest and no consciousness is there to be aware of it, what is the difference between it happening and not happening? How would you measure its reality?   

Consciousness validates existence because it *IS* existence. To augment Descartes' famous statement, "I am aware, therefore I AM." Or we could just replicate the famous Bible quote: "I AM THAT I AM"

To me, infinity existing before awareness is sort of like nothingness existing before somethingness. It is a logical dead end or contradiction to me. From my vantage point, intelligence and consciousness are inseparable. One implies the other (I can't, of myself, honestly logically define them separately). So if the One Infinity is infinite intelligence, and always has been, then it should logically follow that is has always been conscious.

But if you have a different picture of the absolute, its all good. These are just answers which have made sense to me, personally, and I like to share them with others.

When Ra speaks of infinity becoming aware, I've always strongly felt they were implying 'self aware'. Essentially, when infinity became self aware it 'chose' to perceive its own infinite substance as a sort of "object". Doing this reflexively divides infinite subject from infinite object, or primal mind, from primal matter (I'm not talking about physical matter). In spirit, they are unified and indistinguishable. Mind is the portion of consciousness that "self reflects" the infinity of beingness, or spirit, as the exploration of finite material investiture. The whole reason creation continues indefinitely is because infinity, the unquantifiable, cannot be fully reflected in matter (primal object), it cannot be fully known or quantified, thus the material illusion of finite creation is free to continue in an eternal present.

I believe Seth said something similar in regards to one of the "creative dilemmas" of All That Is. He talked about how inner vitality desired to fully materialize itself, but was unable to, which led to action or creation.

The 'shards of broken mirror' you reference in my view is simply the individuate minds, reflecting the original mental reflection of the Logos, and with each increasing individuation another shard of broken mirror appears, holographically reflecting all light that touches it. Reflections, within reflections, within reflections. 

13.5 Questioner: Thank you. Can you tell me of the earliest, first known thing in the creation?

Ra: I am Ra. The first known thing in the creation is infinity. The infinity is creation.

13.6 Questioner: From this infinity then must have come what we experience as creation. What was the next step or the next evolvement?

Ra: I am Ra. Infinity became aware. This was the next step.

13.7 Questioner: After this, what happened?

Ra: Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have called this by various vibrational sound complexes, the most common to your ears being “Logos” or “Love.” The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle called by us as closely as we can create understanding/learning in your language, intelligent infinity.

Well, this is what Ra says. Infinity first and then infinity became aware, which was the 'next step' after infinity.

Even if you suggest that awareness emerges as an element already existent in infinity you still have to allow Infinity to exist first for it to be inherent in.

[Aion]

Also, Descartes said 'I think, therefore I am'... Not 'aware'. I know you augmented, but to clarify the original statement.

Funny to consider as 'I Am Thought'.

[ada]

I still think that Infinity comes before awareness. Infinity existed without awareness, and then awareness came, and reflects infinity back on itself like shards of an infinite mirror.

That's interesting. That's the polar opposite of how I perceive it.  

My understanding is that nothing can exist without awareness there to perpetuate it's existence. If a tree falls in the forest and no consciousness is there to be aware of it, what is the difference between it happening and not happening? How would you measure its reality?   

Consciousness validates existence because it *IS* existence. To augment Descartes' famous statement, "I am aware, therefore I AM." Or we could just replicate the famous Bible quote: "I AM THAT I AM"

To me, infinity existing before awareness is sort of like nothingness existing before somethingness. It is a logical dead end or contradiction to me. From my vantage point, intelligence and consciousness are inseparable. One implies the other (I can't, of myself, honestly logically define them separately). So if the One Infinity is infinite intelligence, and always has been, then it should logically follow that is has always been conscious.

But if you have a different picture of the absolute, its all good. These are just answers which have made sense to me, personally, and I like to share them with others.

When Ra speaks of infinity becoming aware, I've always strongly felt they were implying 'self aware'. Essentially, when infinity became self aware it 'chose' to perceive its own infinite substance as a sort of "object". Doing this reflexively divides infinite subject from infinite object, or primal mind, from primal matter (I'm not talking about physical matter). In spirit, they are unified and indistinguishable. Mind is the portion of consciousness that "self reflects" the infinity of beingness, or spirit, as the exploration of finite material investiture. The whole reason creation continues indefinitely is because infinity, the unquantifiable, cannot be fully reflected in matter (primal object), it cannot be fully known or quantified, thus the material illusion of finite creation is free to continue in an eternal present.

I believe Seth said something similar in regards to one of the "creative dilemmas" of All That Is. He talked about how inner vitality desired to fully materialize itself, but was unable to, which led to action or creation.

The 'shards of broken mirror' you reference in my view is simply the individuate minds, reflecting the original mental reflection of the Logos, and with each increasing individuation another shard of broken mirror appears, holographically reflecting all light that touches it. Reflections, within reflections, within reflections. 

13.5 Questioner: Thank you. Can you tell me of the earliest, first known thing in the creation?

Ra: I am Ra. The first known thing in the creation is infinity. The infinity is creation.

13.6 Questioner: From this infinity then must have come what we experience as creation. What was the next step or the next evolvement?

Ra: I am Ra. Infinity became aware. This was the next step.

13.7 Questioner: After this, what happened?

Ra: Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have called this by various vibrational sound complexes, the most common to your ears being “Logos” or “Love.” The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle called by us as closely as we can create understanding/learning in your language, intelligent infinity.

Well, this is what Ra says. Infinity first and then infinity became aware, which was the 'next step' after infinity.

Even if you suggest that awareness emerges as an element already existent in infinity you still have to allow Infinity to exist first for it to be inherent in.

1.7 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.

Ra has stated himself that he does not know what is beyond, and beyond the 8th. When dealing with the concept of Infinity, something cannot have a beginning because then something else must have created/started this beginning thus creating a paradox contradictory to Infinity.

[anagogy]

Well, this is what Ra says. Infinity first and then infinity became aware, which was the 'next step' after infinity.

I'm very familiar with how Ra states it. If you read my post, I stated that I felt that when they said that they actually meant 'self aware'. It is just my feeling, my intuition, based on my personal experiences. I can't prove it of course, but that is what I believe.

Even if you suggest that awareness emerges as an element already existent in infinity you still have to allow Infinity to exist first for it to be inherent in.

This doesn't make logical sense to me. Infinity is infinity. It doesn't become more infinite, or less infinite. I don't think that awareness emerges from infinity, I think that it *IS* infinity. They are the same thing, precisely.

If all there is is *intelligent* infinity, and Ra themselves say those two concepts are indivisible, wouldn't it stand to reason, logically, that infinity was always conscious?

Can you honestly define intelligent apart from consciousness? I cannot, in all good conscience, do that. Without consciousness there is no intent, and without intent, there is no intelligence. Awareness is a logically necessary and essential component for something to be regarded as "intelligent".

Also, Descartes said 'I think, therefore I am'... Not 'aware'. I know you augmented, but to clarify the original statement.

I'm fairly certain there is not a soul on this forum that is not aware of the famous Descartes quote (I would be shocked if there was). And I did plainly state that I augmented it. And also, as an aside, I would *bet* that that is precisely what Descartes actually meant when he said, "I think, therefore I am." He was saying that he is aware of his thoughts, and this validates the reality of his existence. A thought is merely the shape of your attention at any given time. Of course, I can't prove that's what he meant, but if you read the whole philosophical dialogue, that is the overwhelming feeling of the argument he is making.

Funny to consider as 'I Am Thought'.

I (first distortion), Am (second distortion), That (3rd distortion).

[Aion]

Aha I must say, you do seem to place your intentions in to the words of others as we all do, so discussing the works of others becomes and interesting exercise. Since anyone can say 'I believe they meant this' you can essentially take anyone's words and give your own meaning to them. Of course, each of us will see someone to 'mean' whatever is most conducive to our thought structures. Not saying there is any fault in this, just an observation.

However, perhaps we have a different understanding of intelligence and that might account for our different perceptions. Intelligence, to me, is the potential and consciousness is the kinetic, and so infinity is the potential and awareness is the kinetic.

So yes, we can say they are 'one', but I personally would NOT say they are same concepts became they are in fact the FIRST difference (distortion) and so I actually believe that the difference between infinity and awareness IS the first distortion.

Ra describes the Creator as the unified first three distortions, and that is what they call Intelligent Infinity. Notice however that when Don asks what the first known thing is they said 'infinity', not intelligent infinity. That is because Intelligent Infinity is actually the culmination of the difference between Infinity and Awareness, imo. Yet, you cannot equate awareness with infinity and still get that difference. I believe awareness is 'finity', so infinite awareness is infinity exploring 'finity'.

Essentially I think that's why nothing ends and everything cycles, because awareness demands finite experience because if infinity is entirely aware of itself then it is also aware of nothing for there is no differentiation. It is only with limits and difference that awareness becomes meaningful.

So, sure, we can say the awareness was 'always there', but to me the potential that is infinity came first, and then awareness is the defining difference of Infinity within itself juxtaposed with 'finity'. Perhaps I am going in semantic circles though and we are not saying such different things. I guess we each will perceive our own meanings in each others words.

[ada]

You are saying that Awareness came from an external source, this makes no sense to me, again personal opinion right?

[anagogy]

Aha I must say, you do seem to place your intentions in to the words of others as we all do, so discussing the works of others becomes and interesting exercise. Since anyone can say 'I believe they meant this' you can essentially take anyone's words and give your own meaning to them. Of course, each of us will see someone to 'mean' whatever is most conducive to our thought structures. Not saying there is any fault in this, just an observation.

The alternative is accepting the words spoken by revered teachers to the extent that to question it were intolerable heresy. That would be the definition of dogma. Ra made plenty of errors during the course of their transmission. Unintentionally omitting the word "self" when discussing their sequential cosmology would be incredibly small by comparison. It is completely natural to interpret and build upon others works, and in fact almost all progressive thought relies on it.  Also just an observation.

However, perhaps we have a different understanding of intelligence and that might account for our different perceptions. Intelligence, to me, is the potential and consciousness is the kinetic, and so infinity is the potential and awareness is the kinetic.

So yes, we can say they are 'one', but I personally would NOT say they are same concepts became they are in fact the FIRST difference (distortion) and so I actually believe that the difference between infinity and awareness IS the first distortion.

Yes, we have very different notions of infinity it would seem. You see, when I think of infinity, its everything. Nothing is added to that state, it is merely focused. Every distortion is just a further focusing on what is already there, in infinity. When you focus, the only thing that happens is that awareness is redistributed. Your awareness of the specific increases, and your awareness of the broader picture decreases. That's all that's happening from my perspective.

But you talk about intelligence being the kinetic. Hasn't Ra stated that there is no difference between potential and kinetic in infinity? So even by your own defined parameters there is awareness in infinity.

Ra describes the Creator as the unified first three distortions, and that is what they call Intelligent Infinity. Notice however that when Don asks what the first known thing is they said 'infinity', not intelligent infinity. That is because Intelligent Infinity is actually the culmination of the difference between Infinity and Awareness, imo. Yet, you cannot equate awareness with infinity and still get that difference. I believe awareness is 'finity', so infinite awareness is infinity exploring 'finity'.

They also said that intelligent and infinity cannot be divided anymore than the word "faith" can so that kind of contradicts that notion. They equal one concept according to Ra, so even if they just say 'infinity' it would still imply intelligence, by their own admonition.

Essentially I think that's why nothing ends and everything cycles, because awareness demands finite experience because if infinity is entirely aware of itself then it is also aware of nothing for there is no differentiation. It is only with limits and difference that awareness becomes meaningful.

So, sure, we can say the awareness was 'always there', but to me the potential that is infinity came first, and then awareness is the defining difference of Infinity within itself juxtaposed with 'finity'. Perhaps I am going in semantic circles though and we are not saying such different things. I guess we each will perceive our own meanings in each others words.

Well they have even defined red ray as consciousness (though it is certainly not "self aware"), and that is the most basic vibration there is, according to the Ra cosmology, so what does that say about infinity (which is a mind mindbogglingly massive singularity of all vibrations)?

Also consider this quote: "The one undifferentiated intelligent infinity, unpolarized, full and whole, is the macrocosm of the mystery-clad being. We are messengers of the Law of One. Unity, at this approximation of understanding, cannot be specified by any physics but only be activated or potentiated intelligent infinity due to the catalyst of free will. This may be difficult to accept. However, the understandings we have to share begin and end in mystery."

They are essentially saying, as I see it, here that upotentiated infinity can only become potentiated infinity (kinetic manifestation) due to the catalyst of free will (i.e. first distortion).

Consider for a moment, that free will IMPLIES awareness of choice. A choice is NOT a choice if you are not AWARE of it. Can you agree with me on that? For me, it seems very logically apparent. This is just more implications, to me, that the upotentiated state of infinite unity prior to potentiation is one of absolute awareness (intelligence).

Infinity CHOOSES to potentiate, or kinetically manifest. A choice without awareness is not a choice, rather, it is a random occurrence. Choice conveys conscious awareness of INTENT.

[Aion]

Aha I do not suggest dogma, by any means, but I also would not purport to suggest I know what people intend behind their words. Of course, I conjecture as do you and hypothesize intent. I honestly am not sure it would make a difference even if one of us is right! Aha

27.5 Questioner: It is not necessary to divide it. The definition of intelligent infinity as one part is sufficient. Could you please now define intelligent infinity?

Ra: I am Ra. This is exponentially simpler and less confusing. There is unity. This unity is all that there is. This unity has a potential and kinetic. The potential is intelligent infinity. Tapping this potential will yield work. This work has been called by us, intelligent energy.

The nature of this work is dependent upon the particular distortion of free will which in turn is the nature of a particular intelligent energy or kinetic focus of the potential of unity or that which is all.

27.7 Questioner: Now I think I have extracted an important point from this in that in intelligent infinity we have work without polarity, or a potential difference does not have to exist. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. There is no difference, potential or kinetic, in unity. The basic rhythms of intelligent infinity are totally without distortion of any kind. The rhythms are clothed in mystery, for they are being itself. From this undistorted unity, however, appears a potential in relation to intelligent energy.

In this way you may observe the term to be somewhat two-sided, one use of the term, that being as the undistorted unity, being without any kinetic or potential side. The other application of this term, which we use undifferentiatedly for lack of other term in the sense of the vast potential tapped into by foci or focuses of energy, we call intelligent energy.

The part I put in bold is where I think I crossed terms over.

It is confusing how in one they say "unity has a potential and kinetic" and then also say "there is no difference, potential or kinetic, in unity", which means they are equating them as the same things, yet still using different words to talk about them. They also refer to the kinetic as intelligent energy, and the potential as intelligent infinity. Bit of word salad going on there I think.

[Aion]

They also say "the basic rhythms of intelligent infinity are totally without distortion of any kind", but doesn't intelligent infinity include the first three distortions at least, if not all? Is a 'rhythm' therefore also not any kind of distortion? Some confusing terminology.

Perhaps I need to contemplate what they really mean by "distortion".

[anagogy]

Aha I do not suggest dogma, by any means, but I also would not purport to suggest I know what people intend behind their words. Of course, I conjecture as do you and hypothesize intent. I honestly am not sure it would make a difference even if one of us is right! Aha

What is the difference between "purporting to suggest what people intend behind their words" and "conjecturing and hypothesizing intent"? They are the pretty much the same thing from my perspective.

The part I put in bold is where I think I crossed terms over.

It is confusing how in one they say "unity has a potential and kinetic" and then also say "there is no difference, potential or kinetic, in unity", which means they are equating them as the same things, yet still using different words to talk about them. They also refer to the kinetic as intelligent energy, and the potential as intelligent infinity. Bit of word salad going on there I think.

I've always interpreted it to mean that the difference between potential and kinetic is only apparent, and valid, from the vantage point of the kinetic (illusion).

They also say "the basic rhythms of intelligent infinity are totally without distortion of any kind", but doesn't intelligent infinity include the first three distortions at least, if not all? Is a 'rhythm' therefore also not any kind of distortion? Some confusing terminology.

Perhaps I need to contemplate what they really mean by "distortion".

Since they are distortions, I would assume by definition they would not be included in the distortion-less state of oneness. So here we have a great example of them referencing the state before distortions (i.e. infinity) and still calling it "intelligent".

A distortion, or illusion, only occurs when what you are looking at is not completely accurate or true to how it "really is". But it sounds like how it "really is" is still *intelligent* which, to my mind, is pretty much an open shut case, but I'm sure you probably still don't see it that way. Oh well.