12-14-2012, 02:40 AM
(12-13-2012, 10:49 AM)Siren Wrote: And I also agree. "Nothingness" to me is simply a close approximation to a description for defining that which is an Infinite BEING rather than a "thing." There is no objective referent to Infinite Intelligence/Intelligent Infinity.
It really just boils down to personal preference, but the reason I don't personally use the word "nothingness" is people sometimes confuse it with actual nothingness (as in: devoid of existence). However, I can agree that "infinite potential" would be one way of describing its "thing-less" nature. It's clear to me that no words are perfect descriptors of something that, by its very nature, transcends definition.
Essentially, I'm just attempting to articulate the concept that creation is and was not a "nothing, nothing, nothing, BAM, something", type of situation. Rather, creation is more of a clearing away all that is to not be a part of the creation. Like carving a statue out of a block of marble. You simply remove all the excess material, and there is your statue. It was always "inside" the block of marble.
It just had to be carved out of that infinite potential. The creator does not create from a state of absence, so much as it simply plumbs the depths of its own infinite substance, and chooses portions of its beingness to experience in a seemingly separated illusory environment.
Quote:82.10 Questioner: Why does this partaking in the original thought have a gradient radially outward? That’s the way I understand your statement.
Ra: I am Ra. This is the plan of the One Infinite Creator. The One Original Thought is the harvest of all previous, if you would use this term, experience of the Creator by the Creator. As It decides to know Itself It generates Itself into that plenum, full of the glory and the power of the One Infinite Creator which is manifested to your perceptions as space or outer space. Each generation of this knowing begets a knowing which has the capacity, through free will, to choose methods of knowing Itself. Therefore, gradually, step by step, the Creator becomes that which may know Itself, and the portions of the Creator partake less purely in the power of the original word or thought. This is for the purpose of refinement of the one original thought. The Creator does not properly create as much as It experiences Itself.
Even Ra had an objection to using the word "void" to describe the nature of the source of creation as it evidenced in this section of the LOO:
Quote:82.6 Questioner: That’s what I thought you might say. Am I correct in assuming that at the beginning of this octave, out of what I would call a void of space, seeds of an infinite number of galactic systems such as the Milky Way Galaxy appeared and grew in spiral fashion simultaneously?
Ra: I am Ra. There are duple areas of potential confusion. Firstly, let us say that the basic concept is reasonably well-stated. Now we address the confusion. The nature of true simultaneity is such that, indeed, all is simultaneous. However, in your modes of perception you would perhaps more properly view the seeding of the creation as that of growth from the center or core outward. The second confusion lies in the term, ‘void’. We would substitute the noun, ‘plenum’.
Then again, the nature of language is such that often-times words mean different things to different people, so with the proper context and understanding the word "void" might be a perfectly valid descriptor. Especially where, for you, it means the same thing as "plenum", I just don't personally use it, is all.
Quote:Consciousness cannot actually become un-conscious. It can only forget that it was conscious.
(12-13-2012, 10:49 AM)Siren Wrote: And yet Q'uo and co. have defined the One Infinite Creator as "unaware, infinite intelligence;" "unconscious, intelligent infinity;" and "that great, unknowing, unconscious well of infinite intelligence."
To be perfectly honest with you, I've never found much resonance with the Q'uo channelings or any other "conscious state channeling". The qualitative difference I feel in it, intuitively, compared to say, the Law of One material is VAST. Now, that is not to invalidate it, but it is my sincere opinion that the level of distortion in that body of material versus the Law of One is much greater. The interference is greater from my point of view.
Having said that, I feel it is somewhat of an oxymoron to describe "infinite intelligence" as "unaware". For me, personally, "infinite intelligence" denotes "awareness" or "consciousness" of an imaginably infinite and exquisite nature. All "unconsciousness" is illusory from my point of view. Only in the dream is consciousness *seemingly* reduced. And I don't even like to say "reduced" because that feels inaccurate to me. Rather, I prefer to say "focused". Again, the consciousness doesn't disappear, the energy just becomes more specific, as opposed to "broad". When you focus on something, your awareness of the surrounding environment decreases but your awareness of what is focused on increases. There is a redistribution of energy. This is how all illusions begin.
Even first density matter is "conscious" from my perspective. The difference between the consciousness of matter versus the consciousness of say a 3rd density being is that the 1st density consciousness has become more narrowly focused, or more "specific", so its view of the creation becomes less broad, but it is in no way "unconscious" or "shut off". Even particulate matter is "aware" of energy exchanges of some kind or another. It just has a different "focus" than we do. In otherwords, it is having real conscious experiences, just not self-aware conscious experiences, because that is a broader and less narrowed down point of view.
Even what we call the "unconscious mind" is "conscious" from my perspective. It's just not conscious of the same things the "conscious" mind is. I usually avoid using the word "unconscious" to describe the deeper mind. If I have to, I prefer to say "sub-conscious" because it doesn't carry the implication that is not "aware" of things. Rather both parts of the mind are "conscious", yet they have different functionality, and thus, different streams of thought relevant to their specific functionality.
(12-13-2012, 10:05 PM)kanonathena Wrote: It might be easier to see the intelligent infinity as simply existence. Awareness seems to be a distortion of existence, so within the confine of awareness there is nothing we can imagine that's outside of existence.
From my perspective, intelligent infinity *IS* existence. And existence *IS* "awareness" or "consciousness". This "existence" is akin to "beingness" and it literally is consciousness. Awareness of existence is the pulse-beat of all being.
If you were not aware, could you say you truly existed? Do you see how they are ultimately synonymous?
Awareness of awareness is the undistorted platform from which all patterns of being arise.
However, *self*-awareness is a distortion of pure awareness. Self implies a boundary in an otherwise infinite and boundary-less vista. Self creates a boundary between the inner and the outer. Self is the boundary between who you are, and where you are. When that boundary is dissolved, your consciousness becomes coextensive with all infinity.
This is what some philosophers mean by "nirvana" or "liberation".