Simultaneity, regarding the OIC's origins

[Aion]

I like Anagogy's thoughts, as they very much reflect experiences I have had myself. However, I can comment on the idea of the Void becoming "not Void" and this is because the infinity within Voidness also becomes applied to itself, so infinite Void includes Voidness of Void, or 'non-Void' which we would recognize as 'the All'.

For me, the paradox is resolved when I realized that the Void and Everything co-exist in an eternal paradox right now. The Void and Everything never stopped existing, even when there was a 'beginning' to this octave. The Void and Everything constantly exist now and so the Void has never not been Void and Everything has never not been Everything. They equate and balance eachother.

I would say that Infinity is the One which is made up of the apparent duality of Voidness and Everything, however like Yin and Yang, Everything is Void and the Void is Everything, so they are within eachother and thus are in Unity.

The question of how do you get something from nothing? You don't need to change nothing because everything is nothing and nothing is everything. They equate eachother.

1 = 0

Intelligent Infinity is not 1 or 0 but rather is the '=', the equation, the equal sign which unites and ties together the 1 and the 0 in eternal harmony, just as all numbers are bound such.

Thus, Intelligence balances itself infinitely. Balance is achieved through equations. In my opinion, the operation of equation (the principle of Intelligent Infinity) occurs through Love or Logos.

[Aion]

Try this meditation.

Go back to the beginning of your life and think about your birth. Realize that your birth is simultaneous with this moment.

Realize then that with your birth was simultaneously every birth, every being was born at the exact same time. Extend this to all forms of life. Then extend this to all forms of non-organic life and structures. Your birth coincided with the birth of all things. There was and has only ever been one birth in which all things were born. The only apparent difference is due to relativity of time, of angles of experience. There has only been one birth, however, one beginning, if you would call it that, for the beginning is also the end.

Consider your birth was also the birth of the Earth, the Sun and the Galaxy. They did not diverge only in space but in time at this one birth which occurs simultaneously. Consider then that ALL lives occurs simultaneously. Everything and everyone who is any age is also the same in time as all others whom are that age. We appear separate in time and space, but this is an illusion, in fact regardless of where you are in the time-line, the same years occur simultaneously. All those who are 10 are existing in the same 'year'. All those who are 25 also are existing in the same 'year'. These years are parallel.

Thus, you begin to see that there is in fact only One Life, that of the One Infinite Creator whom has been born once. This means that when we die, when you die, that is also the 'death' of the One Infinite Creator. All deaths occur simultaneously as well. When one dies, they are actually at the same point in time when all deaths occurs. When one dies, they encounter the realm of all death, where everyone dies. Thus, we all are born, live and die in perfect simultaneity. However, we perceive differences through the illusion of time and space. It appears as though some live and die before or after others. In fact, it all happens at once.

Now see that birth, life and death all occur simultaneously. In fact when we are being born, we are also living and experiencing death and then being reborn. This cycle happening infinitely is consciousness. Birth, life, death, rebirth. This revolution of awareness through the phases of infinity is reflected as a journey from the Void to Everything and back to Void, a complete path to and from the One.

There is only the moment in which there is this simultaneity. That is the One Infinite Creator and what I am. I am that moment occurring. In it there is everything and nothing and that is the self.

[Aion]

Oh, last thought. If you want to add to nothing, you change the equation.

1 = 0

1 + 0 = 1 (= 0?)

Addition is light, radiation. This is equilibrium tipped towards growth, towards positive number expansion. Negative is 'darkness' or absorption, equilibrium tipped towards decay, negative number expansion.

The question here then is, what occurs to make the equilibrium (=) become positive (+) or negative (-)? Thus we have the conundrum and drama of free will and the epoch of experience it is taking to understand this simple equation, nevermind multiplication and division...

So goes the saga of polarity.

77.19 Questioner: Do the Logoi that choose this type of evolution choose both the service-to-self and the service-to-others path for different Logoi, or do they choose just one of the paths?

Ra: I am Ra. Those, what you would call, early Logoi which chose lack-of-free-will foundations, to all extents with no exceptions, founded Logoi of the service-to-others path. The, shall we say, saga of polarity, its consequences and limits, were unimagined until experienced.

[Minyatur]

@anagogy

I liked your response, but I disagree a bit with what you said about there never being nothingness.

I liked the 0 = 1 idea and this is how I perceived it.

0 = unmanifested potential and as such nothingness
1 = manifested potential and as such beingness

Both being the very same infinite potential, nothingness being it not manifesting and beingness being it manifesting. I do think eternal nothingness has been but was lacking in itself and as such all desires to explore infinite potential of beingness emerged in all space/time time/space. Just as we are experiencing eternal beigness, we also have experienced eternal nothingness and both are closely linked to each other as the same infinity. Even in nothingness there was infinite potential.

I do think the first distortion of free will stating that "The Creator will know Itself" needs the concept of nothingness to work. Free will is the desire to manifest the potential that is/was unmanifested into Infinity and eternal nothingness. All potential comes to be desired to be manifested and by free will is manifested. Nothingness becomes the potential of beingness.

I've often had the thought : why am I not nothing? Why couldn't I be nothing? Wouldn't it be great to be nothing? Perhaps to be something, we also had to eternally be nothing and as such I cannot be nothing because I've also been nothing just as I am something.

[Sabou]

Great points minytaur and tan.rar, I keep wanting to chime in, but it I keep seeing my thoughts reflected already within all three of your responses. do any of you feel that this subject can reach any degree of resolution within your mind or is it more an exercise of contemplation?

[VanAlioSaldo]

Yet what is the magical property of the equation - "="? What does it mean for something to equal or be equal to something else?

I always assumed infinity inferred equality through unity.  All is One, no-thing is any better or worse than any-thing else.

I always thought Free Will was closest expressed in the equation .99 = 1.

The continual forever rising upwards into knowing complete self, facilitated by Free Will.

I'm so happy you guys engage me on these things.  0 = 1 = Infinity, or Infinity = 0 = 1 has been my go to way of explaining the concept of the Original Thought to others, but so far no one has understood it at all.

I actually believe if you want to better understand the ways of the Law of One you can add against/next to everything a INF-Scale or Infinity-Scale that makes that item = Infinity and everything else around it.  Everything can go on the Infinity Scale, everything within the Infinity Scale is in itself an individual Unit but also Equal to all other Units.  While different, they are still the same.

I didn't say much about the OP because it simply went very well with what I had already thought for myself. It was great to see that ideas I've had were included in later portions of the Ra material I haven't even read yet and that others do view things as I view them.

For me it all started with "I am the Alpha and the Omega" in the christian bible. That quote made me think for years about the nature of time and it's relationship with a supreme God. It became evident to me that God could only be the simultaneous beginning and ending of all things and that without this existence does not make any sense.

I get the 0 = 1 = Infinity and it is like what I found for myself but somehow I am not totally satisfied with this. This doesn't give purpose to beingness nor a way for it to be and it remains that it could simply not be.

This is the exact reason why I made this thread.  0 = 1 = Infinity sounds too easy.  Too simply.  I thought that it was proven by how 1 divided by 0 = infinity.  And that the Law of One created the contextual 0 = 1, from supposedly something/nothing came some-thing.  0 is both the Void and the Potential, potentially the Feminine, with 1 being the Plenum, the Kinetic, potentially the Masculine.  Infinity being the Simultaneity Whole, potentially and kinetically All and One.

I just don't know but I desire to aid the creator in it's grand mysterious origin, in hopes that it'll shed light for me too.  So far I know there is a singular pattern repeated infinitely, and that it may very well be the very most basic intelligent design that constitutes our Universal Reality.  A Straight Line Spiral, or basically a line that curves with the Golden Ration.  There's a Unified theory, that I think I can find.  Okay, basically this combined with Dewey B. Larsons theories may be the closest I have to a scientific theoretical explanation for the Universe.
http://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal/comm...tribution/

But it still can't explain that great big unknown origin!!  So I delve and contemplate and think.  It's fun, it's something to do.

This is an interesting thread to me, because a few weeks ago I found myself "randomly" thinking that

1
--     =     ∞
0

and that this reflected the relationship between the Creator and creation.

I'm guessing someone somewhere is beaming this idea towards humanity to aid in its understanding.
I understand it as follows: one is the unitary consciousness of the Creator.  0 represents the fact that when unity divides into countless forms, each single form represents an infinitesimal portion of that oneness.  Yet the infinite number of 0's combined add up to the Great Unity.

That is another great way of explaining the same logic I intuitively stumbled upon.  I don't think it's someone beaming the idea to us, but more the mechanisms of intuition taking place in our mental thoughts and yearnings.

If I remember correctly Ra said that Infinity needed to be One for it to be. You can argue that there are infinite sub-infinities within it and that can be hardly wrong as we all are sub-infinities within the One Infinity.

Why do you all think Beingness is a satisfactory answer to Infinity? Nothingness could have been. It's pretty easy you simply need to have no energy whatsoever. Which is why I ask, why is there even energy? To permit beingness maybe? Fine but why could not beingness have not been? In my opinion there was eternal void before or rather simulatenously to eternal beingness. As we experienced infinite beingness, we also experienced infinite nothingness.

Speaking of the One Infinity, I think it is easier to picture it as a singularity. One point into which exists only a matrix of one single wave with simply infinite states. This point has no time, no space, no nothing. Yet from within it's matrix of infinite states exists the potential of all things to be.

I didn't say much about the OP because it simply went very well with what I had already thought for myself. It was great to see that ideas I've had were included in later portions of the Ra material I haven't even read yet and that others do view things as I view them.

For me it all started with "I am the Alpha and the Omega" in the christian bible. That quote made me think for years about the nature of time and it's relationship with a supreme God. It became evident to me that God could only be the simultaneous beginning and ending of all things and that without this existence does not make any sense.

I get the 0 = 1 = Infinity and it is like what I found for myself but somehow I am not totally satisfied with this. This doesn't give purpose to beingness nor a way for it to be and it remains that it could simply not be.

But see, that is precisely why nothingness could not have been.  If there was a total lack of anything in some hypothetical beginning, there is simply *no way* anything could happen from it.  There are no ingredients in that infinite state of lack for any spark to be lit.  And if there were, it wouldn't have been nothing in the first place.  This is exactly why nothingness is a logical dead end in this department.

When you accept that there is no nothingness, never was, never will be, it all begins to click into place.  There is just infinity, which is everythingness, which at its heart is Beingness, or awareness -- the unblinking eye of consciousness, which is simply *existence itself*, because if there was no observer, could you really say anything existed at all?  The infinite and eternal observer validates the fact that *we are*.  I AM.  I am aware, therefore I am.

6.7 Questioner: How were you able to make the transition from Venus, and I assume the sixth dimension, which— would that be invisible when you reached here? Did you have to change your dimensions to walk on the Earth?

Ra: You will remember the exercise of the wind. The dissolution into nothingness is the dissolution into unity, for there is no nothingness. From the sixth dimension, we are capable of manipulating, by thought, the intelligent infinity present in each particle of light or distorted light so that we were able to clothe ourselves in a replica visible in the third density of our mind/body/spirit complexes in the sixth density. We were allowed this experiment by the Council which guards this planet.

When I used to meditate on this question, of why there is anything at all, I was offered the image of a kind of central sun, or infinity star.  The brightness of which, was of infinite strength.  Of course, the image was only a symbol, but I was able to generally extrapolate the symbolism from the image, to the best of my ability.  The light that radiated off the star was truth itself.  As it radiated from the Source of truth it would thin out, or attenuate, the further it stretched away from the center of truth, or love and light.  It wasn't just truth, it was also infinite love, unity, and infinite action, or aliveness, or what we think of as "energy".  The void of darkness that surrounded the star was falsity.  It was simply the lack of truth.  That is what made it darkness, as opposed to light.  There was no actual opposite to existence, just the illusion of one.  The light that radiated toward this darkness would not disappear it just thinned out to the point where it would have what it perceived, as experiences of illusion or falsity.  Of darkness.  It would even get confused and think it was separate from the rest of the light (this is not actually possible).  Eventually it would reach the limits of the illusory void of falsity (which as I said, was actually just attenuated truth, or those nooks and crannies of infinity that allowed for perspectives of consciousness with less than total congruency with infinite unity), and it would bounce off it and make a return trip to the center of the star.

This was the inevitable heart beat of existence.  The focusing outwards and inwards till the focuses were complete.  It is an eternal heartbeat, and octave to octave is a heart beat of this divine source.

I am reminded of a quote attributed to Michelangelo, "I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free."

The point is, the angel was already in the statue, and Michelangelo simply whittled away all that was not the statue.  And thus, the creation was apparent.  That is *precisely* how our illusion of reality was culled out of the infinity that was already there.  The parameters of the illusion were carved out of the plenum of everythingness, and the *illusory* opposite to Existence, Truth, or Oneness, became the contrasting backdrop of that creation.

The marble, or plenum of infinite possibilities, so to speak, was always there.  Always has been.  I realize this is hard for the mind to grasp, but I feel very strongly this was so.  And all these experiences, we seem to be having, are just portions of that infinity that were always there.  It is our identification with portions of this infinity which gives us the perception of moving through change.  No change is actually occurring however.  When you are one with everything, you can identify with anything, and create an illusory separation between it, and everything else.  We identify as persons, and so we seem to be persons.  But we are really infinite Beingness.   

We only perceive what we do, because we have forgotten the rest of infinity that is still always and forever there, but is obfuscated by our current perspective of consciousness.

I must highly disagree with the notion that nothingness does not exist.  It ignores Simultaneity which Ra does say is occurring.  It is not that I am inferring that the existence of a Nothingness implies a literal Start and End, nor am I inferring the existence of a Nothingness implies a Void.  Simultaneity states that Paradoxes not only Exist, but can Paradoxically Exist.  Think of this as a Plenum/Void scenario that never actually had a Start, but simply came into being, by the Will of the Creator in its infinite intelligence (or essentially does not 'come into' but simply manifests into an illusion of 'coming into' if that helps), and allowed for the paradox of a Start that never Begun, a NonStart.  Furthermore your quote of Ra referring The dissolution into nothingness is the dissolution into unity, for there is no nothingness. is out of context and not meant literally, but is to aid in the understanding that there is only one thing, Unity.  Dimensions and Traveling were implying a nothingness in between is what I imagine Ra picked up from Don, especially this early in the Ra contact.  I do believe you've taken literally something not meant literally but generally.  But that is my interpretation.

6.7 Questioner: How were you able to make the transition from Venus, and I assume the sixth dimension, which— would that be invisible when you reached here? Did you have to change your dimensions to walk on the Earth?

Ra: You will remember the exercise of the wind. The dissolution into nothingness is the dissolution into unity, for there is no nothingness. From the sixth dimension, we are capable of manipulating, by thought, the intelligent infinity present in each particle of light or distorted light so that we were able to clothe ourselves in a replica visible in the third density of our mind/body/spirit complexes in the sixth density. We were allowed this experiment by the Council which guards this planet.

Ra's bolded answer is in context to Don referencing as if Ra magically disappears and reappears as if teleporting through space and time as another way of viewing it, Ra says this cannot be for the 'absence of' is an illusion to the 'being of'.  The contrasting or saying that dissolution into nothingness is dissolution into unity is also surmising what I'm trying to say Simultaneity points out.  Nothingness, if it exists, is still something.  There is only One.  Furthermore, Ra provides more linking material to aid in this removal of separation in conceptual thought by providing explanation that from 6D Ra was able to create their 3D forms to wear while being 6D entities, imagine your Higher Self wearing your Body.  This is apparently possible (yay infinity~), maybe not in the context of your Literal Higher Self, but that a 6D being can wear a 3D 'suit'.  Basically whatever is behind your eyes seeing right now, will perceive reality not too much differently from a lower Dimension, it might have difficulty with higher Dimensions.  Basically due to the occurrence that Higher Dimensions can coherently navigate lower Dimensions nonlinearly, while lower dimensions have a hard but not impossible time discerning how higher Dimensions operate.  It's all One, it's not that different (even if it is worlds/galaxies/universes/realities/continuums apart...).

Though 'No-thing' is possible, it is paradox, it can be, but will still be some-thing, it is not the TRUE ABSOLUTE ABSENCE OF, where a Void, or Primordial Void, or absolute Lack of Being is occurring.  It is simply another Unit for the Creator, it is 0, and I appreciate it and extend love out to even that contextual absence of, that illusion that is still being that is paradoxically not/is.  Nothing, is still Something.  Do you understand how I'm thinking?  No-thing, is still Some-thing because it is named, it has context added, it is imagined, it is outer space, it is a vacuum in space, it is the center of a black hole, it is everything to some people, nihilistic, pointless and empty, nothing worth it, and it is nothing to others, no sign of emptiness and nothingness.

Nothing does exist, and I will lovingly hold in that belief and tell you that not only will I remain in this belief, but point out that this belief actually adds up with yours.  You are saying that an absolute lack of being is impossible.  I agree.  You're saying an emptiness is not possible, I wholeheartedly disagree.  You then refer to it as attenuated truth, is that not 'something' then?  Nothing as Something is not Nothing, it is exactly what I said it is, a paradox, Something/Nothing.  A Somenothing of Attenuated Truth that aids the Light in the exact way you described.

You come off very forthcoming and powerful with disagreeing with another line of reasoning.  Saying it cannot be.  I just want to point out that All I Truly Know, is that I know nothing.  With this logic in mind I try to tread carefully when telling others that they're wrong.  I actually dislike doing so, I think there's a more positive way to approach the matter.  That however doesn't mean I don't refer to exactly what you're doing though, because it works.  It's powerful and insightful.  But I am too, I like to think anyways.

I believe in Simultaneity, that agrees with Unity and Infinity in design and concept.  It does not allow for whatever word you would use for the term void, without actually existing or not existing, but simply unbeing.  I think Doctor Who called it the Forgotten or Never-Were's?  No, wait, a better idea is the episode where the Dalek's build a Void Ship in order to set off a Reality Bomb to literally wipe out all Creation making them the One remaining Being -braingasm-
The concept simply cannot be for it all, Nothingness, Void, Emptiness, it all has context, inference, meaning, referent, it is attached, conceptually it is attached, contextually it is attached, it can manifest, it can Be.  But that other thing, that true emptiness and lack thereof beingness.  I don't have a word for whatever that is.  I don't know what to call it because it is not something I dare try to believe.  To mistake Nothingness for that is the madness I've read a few people have already gone through on this forum.  I'm one of them.

I must thus, fiercely contest that notion that the Nothingness I refer to is the nothingness you speak of.  As I said, you speak of something I do not have a word for.  Something you speak of I do not believe can be thought of.  I do think, I really do think Doctor Who had the closest concept to this idea, those things that Never-Were, that once were, but now have gone out of existence, have become gone, and never-were.  I do not think that is possible or true or real.  If anything, if there is a hellish empty void-pit of maddening horror, a real hell (which I don't but it's sometimes fun to imagine I guess).  The very center of it would be the closest thing to whatever that is that you speak of.

[VanAlioSaldo]

Try this meditation.

Go back to the beginning of your life and think about your birth. Realize that your birth is simultaneous with this moment.

Realize then that with your birth was simultaneously every birth, every being was born at the exact same time. Extend this to all forms of life. Then extend this to all forms of non-organic life and structures. Your birth coincided with the birth of all things. There was and has only ever been one birth in which all things were born. The only apparent difference is due to relativity of time, of angles of experience. There has only been one birth, however, one beginning, if you would call it that, for the beginning is also the end.

Consider your birth was also the birth of the Earth, the Sun and the Galaxy. They did not diverge only in space but in time at this one birth which occurs simultaneously. Consider then that ALL lives occurs simultaneously. Everything and everyone who is any age is also the same in time as all others whom are that age. We appear separate in time and space, but this is an illusion, in fact regardless of where you are in the time-line, the same years occur simultaneously. All those who are 10 are existing in the same 'year'. All those who are 25 also are existing in the same 'year'. These years are parallel.

Thus, you begin to see that there is in fact only One Life, that of the One Infinite Creator whom has been born once. This means that when we die, when you die, that is also the 'death' of the One Infinite Creator. All deaths occur simultaneously as well. When one dies, they are actually at the same point in time when all deaths occurs. When one dies, they encounter the realm of all death, where everyone dies. Thus, we all are born, live and die in perfect simultaneity. However, we perceive differences through the illusion of time and space. It appears as though some live and die before or after others. In fact, it all happens at once.

Now see that birth, life and death all occur simultaneously. In fact when we are being born, we are also living and experiencing death and then being reborn. This cycle happening infinitely is consciousness. Birth, life, death, rebirth. This revolution of awareness through the phases of infinity is reflected as a journey from the Void to Everything and back to Void, a complete path to and from the One.

There is only the moment in which there is this simultaneity. That is the One Infinite Creator and what I am. I am that moment occurring. In it there is everything and nothing and that is the self.

Mind. Blown. Completely possible. There was a mini-story that went viral on the internet about a man meeting God after dying and being told he is God and everyone, and he is just making his rounds in an infant like manner of learning to mature spiritually to become a God no different from God. In it the next incarnation the man who was the 'main' character was as a korean (I think) girl in the year 500somethingAD when his year was just 2014 when he died. I think it was called the Egg? or... I don't remember.

Oh, last thought. If you want to add to nothing, you change the equation.

1 = 0

1 + 0 = 1 (= 0?) (Reciprocal Theory says Yes, if 0 + 1 then 1 + 0, both equal 1)

Addition is light, radiation. This is equilibrium tipped towards growth, towards positive number expansion. Negative is 'darkness' or absorption, equilibrium tipped towards decay, negative number expansion.

The question here then is, what occurs to make the equilibrium (=) become positive (+) or negative (-)? Thus we have the conundrum and drama of free will and the epoch of experience it is taking to understand this simple equation, nevermind multiplication and division...

So goes the saga of polarity.

77.19 Questioner: Do the Logoi that choose this type of evolution choose both the service-to-self and the service-to-others path for different Logoi, or do they choose just one of the paths?

Ra: I am Ra. Those, what you would call, early Logoi which chose lack-of-free-will foundations, to all extents with no exceptions, founded Logoi of the service-to-others path. The, shall we say, saga of polarity, its consequences and limits, were unimagined until experienced.

Good quote, it brings up the concept that the Creator can imagine and manifest things without knowing the full consequences of it on a Logoi level until they are experienced. I think you must remember that Polarity is also only a result of potential, polarity is only a tool manifested to accelerate spiritual evolution. Allowing for work in consciousness to more consciously polarize to more rapidly perform what you desire, the provide better opportunity to give entities an opportunity to make their Choice.

The archetypes basically explain through application the usefulness of polarity I like to think.

Great points minytaur and tan.rar, I keep wanting to chime in, but it I keep seeing my thoughts reflected already within all three of your responses. do any of you feel that this subject can reach any degree of resolution within your mind or is it more an exercise of contemplation?

Why not both? It is to a degree just an exercise of contemplation for me, a great one that always gets me in the groove. But maybe one day it'll shed unimaginable light upon me. Maybe delving into this thought endlessly will take me to that infinite intelligence one day that knows. Or maybe it is the root contemplation of all beings of this Octave. I'm not sure, but it is truly a great thing that it even exists at all, this original mystery.

[anagogy]

Though 'No-thing' is possible, it is paradox, it can be, but will still be some-thing, it is not the TRUE ABSOLUTE ABSENCE OF, where a Void, or Primordial Void, or absolute Lack of Being is occurring.  It is simply another Unit for the Creator, it is 0, and I appreciate it and extend love out to even that contextual absence of, that illusion that is still being that is paradoxically not/is.  Nothing, is still Something.  Do you understand how I'm thinking?  No-thing, is still Some-thing because it is named, it has context added, it is imagined, it is outer space, it is a vacuum in space, it is the center of a black hole, it is everything to some people, nihilistic, pointless and empty, nothing worth it, and it is nothing to others, no sign of emptiness and nothingness.

Nothing does exist, and I will lovingly hold in that belief and tell you that not only will I remain in this belief, but point out that this belief actually adds up with yours.  You are saying that an absolute lack of being is impossible.  I agree.  You're saying an emptiness is not possible, I wholeheartedly disagree.  You then refer to it as attenuated truth, is that not 'something' then?  Nothing as Something is not Nothing, it is exactly what I said it is, a paradox, Something/Nothing.  A Somenothing of Attenuated Truth that aids the Light in the exact way you described.

You come off very forthcoming and powerful with disagreeing with another line of reasoning.  Saying it cannot be.  I just want to point out that All I Truly Know, is that I know nothing.  With this logic in mind I try to tread carefully when telling others that they're wrong.  I actually dislike doing so, I think there's a more positive way to approach the matter.  That however doesn't mean I don't refer to exactly what you're doing though, because it works.  It's powerful and insightful.  But I am too, I like to think anyways.

I believe in Simultaneity, that agrees with Unity and Infinity in design and concept.  It does not allow for whatever word you would use for the term void, without actually existing or not existing, but simply unbeing.  I think Doctor Who called it the Forgotten or Never-Were's?  No, wait, a better idea is the episode where the Dalek's build a Void Ship in order to set off a Reality Bomb to literally wipe out all Creation making them the One remaining Being -braingasm-
The concept simply cannot be for it all, Nothingness, Void, Emptiness, it all has context, inference, meaning, referent, it is attached, conceptually it is attached, contextually it is attached, it can manifest, it can Be.  But that other thing, that true emptiness and lack thereof beingness.  I don't have a word for whatever that is.  I don't know what to call it because it is not something I dare try to believe.  To mistake Nothingness for that is the madness I've read a few people have already gone through on this forum.  I'm one of them.

I must thus, fiercely contest that notion that the Nothingness I refer to is the nothingness you speak of.  As I said, you speak of something I do not have a word for.  Something you speak of I do not believe can be thought of.  I do think, I really do think Doctor Who had the closest concept to this idea, those things that Never-Were, that once were, but now have gone out of existence, have become gone, and never-were.  I do not think that is possible or true or real.  If anything, if there is a hellish empty void-pit of maddening horror, a real hell (which I don't but it's sometimes fun to imagine I guess).  The very center of it would be the closest thing to whatever that is that you speak of.

The problem with "nothingness" existing is that if nothingness exists, it is then "something", and certainly not nothing.  Nothingness cannot exist for that logical reason alone.  Having a word for a hypothetical state of infinite lack makes it sound like it can exist, like some sort of object, but by its very definition, it cannot exist.  If it does exist, then it is not nothingness.  Do you see my point?

This is why there is something, as opposed to nothing.  "Nothingness" is just an idea existing in "somethingness".  A mere abstraction of thought or language.  You can't imagine it.  You can't experience it.  I apologize if I come across like I know or something.  I don't mean to sound presumptuous or arrogant in my knowledge, I just speak from a place of what I perceive to be strong intuition.  These answers I give resonate with the core of my being, so I speak powerfully about them.  My perspective could change one day, who knows.  But I speak emphatically about what I perceive, and if it doesn't resonate with others, I respect that whole heartedly, and wish them well on their journey of understanding.  But at the same time, I will depict how I see it, and I won't shy away from pointing out where anothers point of view doesn't make sense to me.  And of course, I expect them to do the same.

In my opinion, all "simultaneity" means is that everything is NOW.  Time is a construct.  I don't see it as necessarily supporting "nothingness", logically speaking.  Everything is NOW, because NOW is all that exists.  Past, present, and future all simultaneously existing in the eternal NOW.

Now, I do believe in "no-thing-ness", but not "nothingness".  There is a massive difference between them.  Beingness, is different from "consciousness", which is more similar to what we would call "mind".  Beingness is closer to what we would call "spirit" and you could think of it as consciousness which has liberated itself from subject/object relationships.  The distance between subject and object has completely collapsed here.  Nondual consciousness as it were.  This no-thing-ness is seemingly empty, because as unity, it is the combination of all things in the universe combined, all opposites together, canceling each other out, or balancing each other to the point where an unfathomable emptiness and silence is there, which is pregnant with all possibilities that could be.  Unpotentiated intelligent infinity.  But I wouldn't call it a void, definitely more like a plenum.  The void, I contend, is actually an imaginary one.  That Which Is potentiates the illusion of duality by imagining there is an opposite to That Which Is.  So it potentiates an illusion of That Which is Not, which is the imaginary void I refer to.  This allows for experiences of duality to come into being for a time.  But like all beginnings, it has an end.  But once that end is over, That Which Is keeps on trucking along in its eternal NOW.  

It is free to explore duality again whenever it chooses.

Beingness is like the backdrop of all existence.  The nondual back drop.  It is like when two oppositely charge particles collide and come together.  They don't stop existing, but rather become a synthesized energy.  The Beingness is no-thing-ness that has no opposite, but it is not nothingness.  Nothingness does not leave room for anything to BE.  

Beingness is intangible, but all tangible forms exist within it.  They only appear in separation in duality.  In "mind".  Unity is like a clear still pond.  The tangible things are distortions of light, distortions of Beingness, distortions of the clear still water.  Refractions of light that appear to temporarily exist when the pure light of Beingness is refracted by attention to an imaginary opposite.  When the focus is withdrawn, the refractions of thing-ness disappear as apparent realities.  So in pure Beingness, no "thing" can be perceived, so people confuse it for a void.  Understandably so.

It is just infinite awareness.  

I think a lot of our disagreements in this thread are semantical in nature.  I'm always searching for more pithy or eloquent ways of describing metaphysical things.  I feel that is very similar to someone who has very refined taste in music.  They can hear a beautiful piece of music, but if it sounds slightly off pitch, they can't help but notice it.  It is not good or bad, we are all just speaking from our own unique places of relativity.  It just gets difficult when trying to use form (like language) to describe the formless (Beingness).  Distortions are inevitable, which, I suspect is why many masters utilize the "neti, neti" (not this, not this) approach to describing the absolute.  

It is easier to describe what it is not, than what it is.  

[Aion]

I think we have all engaged in semantic gymnastics at this point.

[VanAlioSaldo]

The problem with "nothingness" existing is that if nothingness exists, it is then "something", and certainly not nothing.  Nothingness cannot exist for that logical reason alone.  Having a word for a hypothetical state of infinite lack makes it sound like it can exist, like some sort of object, but by its very definition, it cannot exist.  If it does exist, then it is not nothingness.  Do you see my point?

Without continuing forward any further, Yes. This is basically what I was trying to say. We are arguing semantics, in that you understand it literally, without the need for applying that this concept is also equivalent to what simultaneity makes possible. The concept of nothing not existing paradoxically, while also being capable of existing in a self-being-paradoxical form of nothing still being something. The absence of is literally in itself evident as an 'absence of'. Thought it is also ultimately just an illusion, not real.

I'm explaining why, you're explaining how. You're not wrong. I actually might use your explanations in the future because they are logically sound, and do tingle my correctness vibe. They're also usable in context to my own explanation, in that the logic does become somewhat hard to distinguish when a paradox allows a paradox of a paradox to create that first paradox creating in itself, an incepted paradox. I honestly don't know if that will make sense in the context that nothing is impossible and thus infinity making possible infinity itself could actually make a nothingness possible in the illusion that it were the absence and separation of Being from Being, thus in itself being the cause of the nothingness in itself, the ultimate realization to an individual self experiencing the nothingness and stumbling upon light once more, to discover there was never a separation at all.

Or call it a Self-Fulfilling Paradox-Prophecy. Nothingness can be by the avenue of somethingness experiencing such isolation it perceives nothingness, and isolates. The Creator is in itself that nothingness however, it knows all the pain and it remains even as we so violently out lash believing ourselves lost and gone and possibly even still in polarity. Yet we experience by avenue of ourselves that nothingness. You're still talking about a literal physical nothingness-void-thing. Which I agree does not literally exist in the context you describe. I however am journeying into reality, personal reality. Physical Mental-Emotional contextual consensus reality.

Do you think a person committing suicide does not think nothingness doesn't exist? I think some of them might literally prefer that thought to an actual afterlife consequence effect. Making it in effect closer and closer to their reality as they desire it more and more.

...In a lot of NDE reports, like on nderf.org, about suicides there are some people who after venturing into the spirit world come across several doors. Some good and some suicidal come across a door of a 'yellow plane where other people, souls, would walk aimlessly, slowly with their heads down, as if lost, so lost they'd bump into each other. It was a place of separation, a kindness at the least in that they had no idea where they were, but were always present within and without.

I wonder if they think nothingness isn't real, even after realizing they were never alone.

I agree with you, but I also am addressing a separate contextual point. A personal reality, not the objective universal actuality of existence. Which again I also agreed with you upon saying that your referent to a 'nothingness-void-thing' or something that you call a Void, that in your reference, is not a void but a complete lack of being, is not possible. I hope not... And I also agree that your manner of explaining it also fits in with the explanation of how it simultaneously can and cannot exist at the exact same time. It is truly an illusion, but it is still apparent. It's not the beginning or causal beingness. It's not the ending result... It's a created illusion. In regarding Polarity that the Logoi had chosen to experience, Ra mentioned that the Logoi did not imagine the intended consequences and results of polarity until they were experienced.

Would that polarity not allow in it a consequence of an experiencing the illusion of wholly being separated? Does Kundalini not have the capacity to accidentally cause harm, does unintended fast polarization not cause trauma? Is a potential not the illusion of nothingness being experienced unknown, individually, as if it were truly real?

I almost feel like I should fear explaining this any further... That I'll begin over simplifying it to an annoying point.

Have I made this any clearer? I am agreeing with you. Are you disagreeing with me...Or...?

[AnthroHeart]

There is no origin in simultaneity. There is no nothingness. Even a plenum is a potential.

[anagogy]

Do you think a person committing suicide does not think nothingness doesn't exist?  I think some of them might literally prefer that thought to an actual afterlife consequence effect.  Making it in effect closer and closer to their reality as they desire it more and more.

...In a lot of NDE reports, like on nderf.org, about suicides there are some people who after venturing into the spirit world come across several doors.  Some good and some suicidal come across a door of a 'yellow plane where other people, souls, would walk aimlessly, slowly with their heads down, as if lost, so lost they'd bump into each other.  It was a place of separation, a kindness at the least in that they had no idea where they were, but were always present within and without.

I wonder if they think nothingness isn't real, even after realizing they were never alone.

I think it would depend on the experiencer, but one thing to keep in mind about NDE reports (and as an aside, I find such accounts absolutely fascinating by the way), is that the experience that any given person has during an NDE is still being processed through a physical brain.  There are a lot of intangible time/space experiences that do not correctly translate down to the physical level of perception, so the experience that is related is often their physical perspectives best job at translating the "untranslatable".  Meaning, they are not necessarily completely accurate representations of what happened.

The same goes for dreaming.  And astral projection.  What we call "dreaming" is often just the last ditch interpretation of time/space events by the space/time perspective of consciousness, to try and make the intangible vibrational experience understandable to the tangible personality.  The distortions of the egoic personality will naturally clothe the intangible in the symbolic ward robe of 3-dimensional imagery, but they are not always the most accurate representations.  I don't say this to invalidate anything, just as an interesting perspective to keep in mind, when perusing any personal anecdote or experience of another.  What is consciousness if not perspective?

Would that polarity not allow in it a consequence of an experiencing the illusion of wholly being separated?  Does Kundalini not have the capacity to accidentally cause harm, does unintended fast polarization not cause trauma?  Is a potential not the illusion of nothingness being experienced unknown, individually, as if it were truly real?

Well, the illusion of That Which is Not can only be taken so far.  That Which Is can explore a continuum of imaginary lack to a certain point, but it cannot imagine a state of complete and total lack.  A more simple way of saying this is that Existence cannot fully imagine Nonexistence (infinite lack).  Because that would necessitate the complete extinguishing of awareness, which is simply not possible from my perspective.  The best it can do is pretend to be unconscious, which is not true unconsciousness (more like a lack of collecting of memory images is the best it can approximate).  For example, a lot of people think they lose consciousness when they go to sleep.  In reality, they do not.  Absence of memory is not memory of absence.  You never stop being "aware".

It is a little like a nightmare you are having and then suddenly wake up in bed, realizing you were never really where you thought you were.  You were safe in bed the whole time, just having a dream.

I almost feel like I should fear explaining this any further... That I'll begin over simplifying it to an annoying point.

Have I made this any clearer?  I am agreeing with you.  Are you disagreeing with me...Or...?

No worries, friend.  It is unlikely you will annoy me.  I actually quite enjoy your thought processes, they fill me with fondness as they remind me of myself at your age.  These metaphysical concepts we are exploring in this thread fill me with absolute joy as we meticulously explore all the little nooks and crannies of them.  All is well, we are with infinite intelligence in these honest seekings of the heart of all existence.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing or agreeing with anything you've said, I simply see opportunities to offer a certain perspective. An opportunity I wholeheartedly welcome. I sincerely appreciate the opportunities you present to me.

One difference between us I have noticed is that you seem to have a fondness for paradoxes.  I do not believe in paradoxes.  In unity, all paradoxes are resolved.  The perception of paradox is the perception of distortion.  When the distortion is resolved, so also is the seeming paradox.  

I welcome your thoughts on this perspective.

[VanAlioSaldo]

Paradoxes resolved become necessary I think. It does injure the overall logic of linearity but at the same time for me, the ability to reconcile two seeming opposites into.a whole is the process I desire to know. Its the process of uniting. If you've united already then I congratulate you. I'm learning.

I think you've complicated Time/space more than needs to be though. Dream interpretations are symbolic, I don't see that as dumbing down, but retaining the Veil.

NDE's are processed simultaenously for some and only physically for others. Those who've had a complete stop in brain activity are no longer functioning with that physical interpreter until they're resuscitated. Yet they're still experiencing. Despite that, the veil is highly apparent in ndes if you contemplate on several aspects of how people describe things.

[VanAlioSaldo]

I should mention, I look at paradoxes as a means of a logical aid to go from a perspective of separateness to wholeness. We start off believing ourselves separate in incarnation. You may have the belief aspect of singleness. I do not. I do not literally see everything as one despite now believing I know it. Thus I look for my 3D answer to bridge me to 6D understanding.

Consciousness has to be more than perspective. One could argue consciousness IS beingness in itself but its hard to say.

Why do you think infinity can't spawn an illusion of a void? Or do you? Because I do. I dont think it can spawn a compete lack of itself, not without trauma of some sort that I imagine is avoided if ever discovered and healing provided to any who might've stumbled upon that. Or maybe not. It is hard to say.

[anagogy]

I should mention, I look at paradoxes as a means of a logical aid to go from a perspective of separateness to wholeness.  We start off believing ourselves separate in incarnation.  You may have the belief aspect of singleness.  I do not.  I do not literally see everything as one despite now believing I know it.  Thus I look for my 3D answer to bridge me to 6D understanding.

Consciousness has to be more than perspective.  One could argue consciousness IS beingness in itself but its hard to say.

Why do you think infinity can't spawn an illusion of a void?  Or do you?  Because I do.  I dont think it can spawn a compete lack of itself, not without trauma of some sort that I imagine is avoided if ever discovered and healing provided to any who might've stumbled upon that. Or maybe not.  It is hard to say.

I believe infinity can spawn an illusion of a void.  It just can't spawn an actual void from my perspective.

I agree that consciousness is beingness.  I define beingness as consciousness beyond subject/object relationships.  Consciousness still engaged in subject/object relationships I call "mind" which involves a perspective in relation to said objects.  

Thanks for sharing your perspectives.  

[Aion]

What is the difference between illusory and actual?

[anagogy]

What is the difference between illusory and actual?

To me?

Illusions have beginnings and endings.  Real things do not.  

[AnthroHeart]

Having a root canal and getting a tooth pulled is merely illusion.

[VanAlioSaldo]

I should mention, I look at paradoxes as a means of a logical aid to go from a perspective of separateness to wholeness.  We start off believing ourselves separate in incarnation.  You may have the belief aspect of singleness.  I do not.  I do not literally see everything as one despite now believing I know it.  Thus I look for my 3D answer to bridge me to 6D understanding.

Consciousness has to be more than perspective.  One could argue consciousness IS beingness in itself but its hard to say.

Why do you think infinity can't spawn an illusion of a void?  Or do you?  Because I do.  I dont think it can spawn a compete lack of itself, not without trauma of some sort that I imagine is avoided if ever discovered and healing provided to any who might've stumbled upon that. Or maybe not.  It is hard to say.

I believe infinity can spawn an illusion of a void.  It just can't spawn an actual void from my perspective.

I agree that consciousness is beingness.  I define beingness as consciousness beyond subject/object relationships.  Consciousness still engaged in subject/object relationships I call "mind" which involves a perspective in relation to said objects.  

Thanks for sharing your perspectives.  

Thank you too, I agree.

I think illusion and actual may not be too different from space/time and time/space. But I honestly don't know, the illusions are pretty real to my 3D body lol

[Minyatur]

I should mention, I look at paradoxes as a means of a logical aid to go from a perspective of separateness to wholeness.  We start off believing ourselves separate in incarnation.  You may have the belief aspect of singleness.  I do not.  I do not literally see everything as one despite now believing I know it.  Thus I look for my 3D answer to bridge me to 6D understanding.

Consciousness has to be more than perspective.  One could argue consciousness IS beingness in itself but its hard to say.

Why do you think infinity can't spawn an illusion of a void?  Or do you?  Because I do.  I dont think it can spawn a compete lack of itself, not without trauma of some sort that I imagine is avoided if ever discovered and healing provided to any who might've stumbled upon that. Or maybe not.  It is hard to say.

I believe infinity can spawn an illusion of a void.  It just can't spawn an actual void from my perspective.

I agree that consciousness is beingness.  I define beingness as consciousness beyond subject/object relationships.  Consciousness still engaged in subject/object relationships I call "mind" which involves a perspective in relation to said objects.  

Thanks for sharing your perspectives.  

Thank you too, I agree.

I think illusion and actual may not be too different from space/time and time/space.  But I honestly don't know, the illusions are pretty real to my 3D body lol

Just as real as a wall is in a video game for your character. Yet it's all just ordered data.

[VanAlioSaldo]

I should mention, I look at paradoxes as a means of a logical aid to go from a perspective of separateness to wholeness.  We start off believing ourselves separate in incarnation.  You may have the belief aspect of singleness.  I do not.  I do not literally see everything as one despite now believing I know it.  Thus I look for my 3D answer to bridge me to 6D understanding.

Consciousness has to be more than perspective.  One could argue consciousness IS beingness in itself but its hard to say.

Why do you think infinity can't spawn an illusion of a void?  Or do you?  Because I do.  I dont think it can spawn a compete lack of itself, not without trauma of some sort that I imagine is avoided if ever discovered and healing provided to any who might've stumbled upon that. Or maybe not.  It is hard to say.

I believe infinity can spawn an illusion of a void.  It just can't spawn an actual void from my perspective.

I agree that consciousness is beingness.  I define beingness as consciousness beyond subject/object relationships.  Consciousness still engaged in subject/object relationships I call "mind" which involves a perspective in relation to said objects.  

Thanks for sharing your perspectives.  

Thank you too, I agree.

I think illusion and actual may not be too different from space/time and time/space.  But I honestly don't know, the illusions are pretty real to my 3D body lol

Just as real as a wall is in a video game for your character. Yet it's all just ordered data.

This is the exact way I first understood the concept. Life is in a sense a game without a HUD. You only get one play before you must start a new life. You get close calls. You have goals you either stumble into or create for yourself.

I wish I had stats and a HUD often. Am I feeling lucky today...? Noooope, okiedoke!

[Aion]

What is the difference between illusory and actual?

To me?

Illusions have beginnings and endings.  Real things do not.  

So what, for you, is included under the umbrella of "real"?

[anagogy]

So what, for you, is included under the umbrella of "real"?

Well, everything that can be experienced is some degree of real, from my perspective.  But some things are more real than others things because they are more permanent.

Unity would be the most real, since it is the most permanent.  All conscious experiences of unity (which is all that can be), is some measure of distorted/undistorted.

The undistorted unity doesn't disappear when somebody sees an illusion, the perception of it just becomes skewed, warped, or distorted. Beingness remains flawlessly undistorted, regardless.  So it is a sliding scale of realness, with unity being the ultimate frame of reference.  The illusions are temporary ripples on the surface of the pond (surface of infinity), but the pond isn't going anywhere.  All illusions of relativity are relative because they exist only relation to the absolute.  The absolute is not dependent on the relative, which is why it isn't relative.

Some argue that there is a mutually sustaining dialect between the relative and the absolute. I'm still working that out. It could be because infinity would not be infinity without the distorted refractions of infinity, so relativity is a necessary component of infinity. I'm leaning in that direction these days. But, even still, some states of consciousness are more consonant with unity that other states of consciousness. Least, that is my current opinion.

Do you have a different perspective on this matter? I welcome your thoughts.

[Aion]

So what, for you, is included under the umbrella of "real"?

Well, everything that can be experienced is some degree of real, from my perspective.  But some things are more real than others things because they are more permanent.

Unity would be the most real, since it is the most permanent.  All conscious experiences of unity (which is all that can be), is some measure of distorted/undistorted.

The undistorted unity doesn't disappear when somebody sees an illusion, the perception of it just becomes skewed, warped, or distorted.  Beingness remains flawlessly undistorted, regardless.  So it is a sliding scale of realness, with unity being the ultimate frame of reference.  The illusions are temporary ripples on the surface of the pond (surface of infinity), but the pond isn't going anywhere.  All illusions of relativity are relative because they exist only relation to the absolute.  The absolute is not dependent on the relative, which is why it isn't relative.

Do you have a different perspective on this matter?

So real to illusion is a spectrum of degrees?

I am just trying to understand what you are thinking. I understand what you are saying in terms of conceptualization but I am confused over how exactly this is supposed to be organized. It seems to me that from what you are saying 'real' or 'illusion' is entirely a matter of perspective if the undistorted unity is always and ever present, it's just a matter of whether or not that is what you are perceiving. However, this becomes more difficult to apply to actual experience because in actual physical experience the 'undistorted unity' and the 'distorted unity' don't have clear or apparent divisions.

Basically, my issue with this train of thought is that it is entirely mental it seems. It looks great in theory and in the mind, but when I start to think about it in reality it doesn't make any sense to me. One of the reasons is because real/illusion appears to me to be a duality and so I don't understand how that can be fundamental to unity which does not have such a differentiation.

That also being said, in the idea of permanence there is impermanence and so again, a duality used to measure unity which doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me there is a great effort to separate "real" from "illusory" but I don't understand it because to me they are really no different. The way people apply these words they use them to instead try to categorize truth, in otherwords what is real is true, what is illusory is false. Yet, the attempt to categorize the truth of unity is, in itself, a flawed approach in my mind, since unity can't be categorized.

I suppose in my mind at the level of infinity 'real' and 'illusory' completely dissolve and there is nothing that is real, unreal, illusory or non-illusory. Hence to suggest that infinity being permanent is 'more real' than finity being impermanent is, in my eyes an assessment of truth. In my mind, however, both permanent and impermanent are real and illusory. In otherwords, they are a mental analysis of the state of something. Therefore the descriptions themselves are only as relevant as the analysis makes them.

I instead do not make this differentiation I suppose. When I discuss the universe, I discuss it as One. I do not see it that there is a level or aspect which is 'more true' or 'more real' than others in actuality, only as far as assessment and reasoning goes one can formulate those descriptions.

For me, I see it that unity is in all things. So in discussing the nature of reality, I have a hard time separating things from that unity. Hence to suggest that say, a napkin is more illusory and finite than say a Buddha, I would disagree. Instead, the limit I am aware of is that of apprehension. The apprehension one has of anything will determine to what degree infinity may be seen in it. I see infinity in a napkin the same as I do in a Buddha.

I believe the process of becoming aware of unity isn't about becoming aware of some 'real' or 'truth' that is there behind everything else, that is greater than everything else. Instead, I believe it is about beginning to see that it is literally everywhere, everything, there is nothing that is not part of that truth. So everything is both permanent and impermanent, everything is real and illusory, and this zero-sum game is the Void voiding Itself.

Hence why I believe the Void/Everything is constantly, always present. It's not a paradox either because the Void is not exclusive to everything, nor is everything exclusive to the Void, in fact they necessitate eachother, they are One and the same.

Questioner: For general development [of the] reader of this book, could you state some of the practices or exercises to perform to produce an acceleration toward the Law of One?

Ra: I am Ra.

Exercise One. This is the most nearly centered and usable within your illusion complex. The moment contains love. That is the lesson/goal of this illusion or density. The exercise is to consciously seek that love in awareness and understanding distortions. The first attempt is the cornerstone. Upon this choosing rests the remainder of the life-experience of an entity. The second seeking of love within the moment begins the addition. The third seeking powers the second, the fourth powering or doubling the third. As with the previous type of empowerment, there will be some loss of power due to flaws within the seeking in the distortion of insincerity. However, the conscious statement of self to self of the desire to seek love is so central an act of will that, as before, the loss of power due to this friction is inconsequential.

Exercise Two. The universe is one being. When a mind/body/spirit complex views another mind/body/spirit complex, see the Creator. This is an helpful exercise.

Exercise Three. Gaze within a mirror. See the Creator.

Exercise Four. Gaze at the creation which lies about the mind/body/spirit complex of each entity. See the Creator.

Tl;Dr - The Absolute is relative only to itself, and so all relativity is a fundamental of unity.

[anagogy]

So real to illusion is a spectrum of degrees?

I am just trying to understand what you are thinking. I understand what you are saying in terms of conceptualization but I am confused over how exactly this is supposed to be organized. It seems to me that from what you are saying 'real' or 'illusion' is entirely a matter of perspective if the undistorted unity is always and ever present, it's just a matter of whether or not that is what you are perceiving. However, this becomes more difficult to apply to actual experience because in actual physical experience the 'undistorted unity' and the 'distorted unity' don't have clear or apparent divisions.

Basically, my issue with this train of thought is that it is entirely mental it seems. It looks great in theory and in the mind, but when I start to think about it in reality it doesn't make any sense to me. One of the reasons is because real/illusion appears to me to be a duality and so I don't understand how that can be fundamental to unity which does not have such a differentiation.

That also being said, in the idea of permanence there is impermanence and so again, a duality used to measure unity which doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me there is a great effort to separate "real" from "illusory" but I don't understand it because to me they are really no different. The way people apply these words they use them to instead try to categorize truth, in otherwords what is real is true, what is illusory is false. Yet, the attempt to categorize the truth of unity is, in itself, a flawed approach in my mind, since unity can't be categorized.

The distinction between real and unreal is only important to beings inhabiting states of consciousness such as we, involving relativity.  As beings trying to grasp the light of undistorted unity because we don't consciously perceive it.  

So it is only relevant to beings seeking the light of truth.  Some beings aren't seeking this.  So it wouldn't be relevant to them, they are happy with the dream.

The absolute couldn't care less about such distinctions.  From its "perspective", there is no distortion.  Just undistorted unity.  Clear still pond.

The universe is nondual.  There is no duality.  But the One, in an attempt to apprehend the Two, or duality (Ra calls it the exploration of manyness), attempt to create an illusory one.  As it stands, unity can not become disunity.  The nondual cannot actually become dual.  All it can do is confuse itself.  It is like the snake looking at its own tail, and mentally deciding that the thing it is seeing is other than itself.  This is obviously not true, but it plays these mind games with itself, for the sake of the experience.  Why not?  Nothing but time, right, haha?

Rather than painstakingly trying to define a clear line between real and unreal, in practical experience it may be more organic to just think of it as waking up a little more with each experience, which is pretty much what we are all doing automatically.  We have experiences, we distill the love/light from them, and move onto the next experience.

The main thing of importance to understand, metaphysically, about distortion/undistortion in my opinion is that distortion involves a willful focus.  That is the kinetic manifestation of intelligent infinity.  When the focus is relaxed, the consciousness automatically withdraws back to the natural state of undistorted beingness.

If I failed to address your question, let me know.  Thanks.

Tl;Dr - The Absolute is relative only to itself, and so all relativity is a fundamental of unity.

I agree that the relative is part of the absolute (I think).  I just don't think the absolute experiences the relative like we experience the relative.  Perhaps I'm horribly confusing the issue, but perception of separation, of any kind, is unique to us, seemingly inhabiting portions of reality, rather than the "whole shebang".  That is the difference from my perspective.  One is potentiated (willful focus which creates distortions) and one is unpotentiated (relaxed focus, dissolving back into pure unity).

Anyways, thanks for sharing your thoughts.  They are very interesting.

[Aion]

I also had some further thoughts. What you refer to as 'real' and 'illusory' I would actual relate to the concept of purity as Ra tends to use it.

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=purity

They use it many times to refer to genuineness, but I believe that this is related to what is Absolute in that anything can be Absolute. The Absolute is everything, thus everything is Absolute but this is where the degrees to which anything is absolute come in. The less absolute something is, the more it is mixed, thus divided. When something is absolute, it is One. Thus when it is not absolute, it is two, three or more divisions, these are distortions. I believe this is the nature of the Archetypes.

Thus, what is real or illusory is actually a matter entirely of apprehension. It's not whether something is Absolute or not, it is whether or not you are actually perceiving it for what it is. Real or illusory is a problem of perception and reason, not of reality, imo.

This is why I believe that the power of any one thought is not determined by how real it is, but rather by how clear one's focus is. The mind is a space in which logos or love can focus, do its thing. That is what it is there for. Therefore, I think that when one becomes one pointed in their focus upon any thought, say even upon a napkin, you can touch the Absolute.

Now, this is why I say the idea relates to purity because I do believe that there are thoughts or things upon which logos can focus that create more efficient or less extensive pathways from and to the One. For example, it may be much easier to consider the One through focus upon a deity rather than say, a piece of lego. Referring to the exercise above, I would perhaps use it as a measure of the abstraction one requires to 'see the Creator'.

However, in terms of real and illusory, I would instead say that to not first recognizing the deity as a deity, or the lego as lego would be to be deluded by illusion. This suggests that everything has its individual existence, down to the very atom. Nothing is merely some 'illusory' creation of something else, not even the One. Delusion and confusion are the traits of a self-aware mind attempting to apprehend itself as the One, not contents of the universe itself, I would say.

[anagogy]

Thus, what is real or illusory is actually a matter entirely of apprehension. It's not whether something is Absolute or not, it is whether or not you are actually perceiving it for what it is. Real or illusory is a problem of perception and reason, not of reality, imo.

To be honest, to me, this just sounds like another way of saying the same thing I said.  

Basically, unity is what is and accurate or inaccurate perception of that determines how undistorted/distorted your experience of that is. Distortion = illusion. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means it doesn't exist the way it necessarily appears to.

[Aion]

So real to illusion is a spectrum of degrees?

I am just trying to understand what you are thinking. I understand what you are saying in terms of conceptualization but I am confused over how exactly this is supposed to be organized. It seems to me that from what you are saying 'real' or 'illusion' is entirely a matter of perspective if the undistorted unity is always and ever present, it's just a matter of whether or not that is what you are perceiving. However, this becomes more difficult to apply to actual experience because in actual physical experience the 'undistorted unity' and the 'distorted unity' don't have clear or apparent divisions.

Basically, my issue with this train of thought is that it is entirely mental it seems. It looks great in theory and in the mind, but when I start to think about it in reality it doesn't make any sense to me. One of the reasons is because real/illusion appears to me to be a duality and so I don't understand how that can be fundamental to unity which does not have such a differentiation.

That also being said, in the idea of permanence there is impermanence and so again, a duality used to measure unity which doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me there is a great effort to separate "real" from "illusory" but I don't understand it because to me they are really no different. The way people apply these words they use them to instead try to categorize truth, in otherwords what is real is true, what is illusory is false. Yet, the attempt to categorize the truth of unity is, in itself, a flawed approach in my mind, since unity can't be categorized.

The distinction between real and unreal is only important to beings inhabiting states of consciousness such as we, involving relativity.  As beings trying to grasp the light of undistorted unity because we don't consciously perceive it.  

So it is only relevant to beings seeking the light of truth.  Some beings aren't seeking this.  So it wouldn't be relevant to them, they are happy with the dream.

The absolute couldn't care less about such distinctions.  From its "perspective", there is no distortion.  Just undistorted unity.  Clear still pond.

The universe is nondual.  There is no duality.  But the One, in an attempt to apprehend the Two, or duality (Ra calls it the exploration of manyness), attempt to create an illusory one.  As it stands, unity can not become disunity.  The nondual cannot actually become dual.  All it can do is confuse itself.  It is like the snake looking at its own tail, and mentally deciding that the thing it is seeing is other than itself.  This is obviously not true, but it plays these mind games with itself, for the sake of the experience.  Why not?  Nothing but time, right, haha?

Rather than painstakingly trying to define a clear line between real and unreal, in practical experience it may be more organic to just think of it as waking up a little more with each experience, which is pretty much what we are all doing automatically.  We have experiences, we distill the love/light from them, and move onto the next experience.

The main thing of importance to understand, metaphysically, about distortion/undistortion in my opinion is that distortion involves a willful focus.  That is the kinetic manifestation of intelligent infinity.  When the focus is relaxed, the consciousness automatically withdraws back to the natural state of undistorted beingness.

If I failed to address your question, let me know.  Thanks.

Tl;Dr - The Absolute is relative only to itself, and so all relativity is a fundamental of unity.

I agree that the relative is part of the absolute (I think).  I just don't think the absolute experiences the relative like we experience the relative.  Perhaps I'm horribly confusing the issue, but perception of separation, of any kind, is unique to us, seemingly inhabiting portions of reality, rather than the "whole shebang".  That is the difference from my perspective.  One is potentiated (willful focus which creates distortions) and one is unpotentiated (relaxed focus, dissolving back into pure unity).

Anyways, thanks for sharing your thoughts.  They are very interesting.

These are good points and I generally agree with you, however my only disagreement is with the idea that the One is confused, deluded or unaware of its own 'illusions'. This is where I think confusion can easily arise because for me I actually see it that the One is completely aware of everything, all the time. It is experiencing everything we experience, because we are its experience. We are its eyes, it ears, mouths and bodies. It is here, active, it IS what is going on, there is no other process other than that of the One.

Thus, I see it that the One is in fact acting if you were to use a metaphor. I think the One is completely aware of all the roles that it plays and how they all interact. I believe the One actually explores its own intelligence through the experiences occurring. It is experiencing itself. Honestly, I believe the One, the universe is a blank slate and that we, the many entities of the universe, create its structure in infinite parallel states.

This is a crucial point in that I believe we here on Earth are within the Creation of another living, breathing, conscious entity while our own Creations are still taking place. We have focused ourselves here to participate in the Creation of this entity, this Logos. Thus why there are unique and individual cosmologies that each individual creates because each is actually creating their own universe since each is the One. Everyone is at a different stage in their creations so there are many differences in the structure. What we have with people discussing philosophy and the structure of 'this' universe, that we all share in externally, is usually people actually translating the structures of their own universe to this one. Since every universe interpenetrates every other, with enough will this Creation can be changed.

The Logos of this Creation has allowed us, invited us in to its Creation so that we may not only be part of it, but to bring in intelligence which it has not experienced before now. Remember, the Logos of this Galaxy was once a creature, once of our density, I strongly believe that anyways. I think it is intimately intertwined with everything that occurs. It is trying to discover itself. We are also Logoi trying to discover ourselves. We are aiding eachother in this task.

It is true that ultimately it is beneficial to 'go with the flow' day to day, but I also believe that as we work on these mental thoughts, these conceptualizations, we are working upon unraveling the mysteries of ourselves. Thanks for the comments, it has been insightful.

[Aion]

Thus, what is real or illusory is actually a matter entirely of apprehension. It's not whether something is Absolute or not, it is whether or not you are actually perceiving it for what it is. Real or illusory is a problem of perception and reason, not of reality, imo.

To be honest, to me, this just sounds like another way of saying the same thing I said.  

Basically, unity is what is and accurate or inaccurate perception of that determines how undistorted/distorted your experience of that is.  Distortion = illusion.  Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means it doesn't exist the way it necessarily appears to.

I perhaps misinterpreted you and took it that you meant the thing in itself rather than the perception was real or unreal.

[VanAlioSaldo]

So we have the matter of what the beingness is and the understanding of illusion and reality being One, with the understanding that beingness by itself makes itself be. (How I took everything away at least).

So now that we all have the same concept in mind,with varying levels of distortion between us that are semantic in nature.

Now that we have the 'What, and Why', lets find the How!

How does it all happen and work. We touch upon this aspect but only to explain our Why's to our understandings.

How could we sum up what we have now to apply to that, the How prospect?

I'd offer my thoughts but I'm at work, I'll try for later in the day when I'm home.