There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY

[Questioner]

This gets back to the concept of a holographic universe. It's pretty fundamental to Ra's teaching, as I understand it. We have discussed the quote where Ra says that "any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity." Here's how they put it another time: "the unity of the Creator exists within the smallest portion of any material created by Love, much less in a self-aware being."

Those are wonderful quotes to see back to back. Thanks for highlighting them.

[Experience You]

I was thinking...
if in the 7th density we are ONE with infinity, basically we are everything, so not just the next octave but all octaves linked to that point that is infinity itself.

Like a singularity encompassing All That IS.

Does Ra disagree with that ?

[unity100]

you are already part of infinity. nothing can be outside infinity.

but it seems you mean merging back with infinite intelligence, 1 principle below infinity. in that case, since there are more than one octave, and entities continue through octaves, it would again mean that entities still even do not become intelligent infinity, but, merge with each other to that intelligent infinity as much as they can.

and when some kind of situation, focus attracts them, they experience another octave in another heartbeat. that would mean no characteristic, no element of infinite intelligence totally dissolves into intelligent infinity, but keeps integrating and changing forever.

[Experience You]

My intuition tells me that although you can tend to infinity forever and never get there, there is also the state of being infinity.

You can design octaves, and whatnot but this holds.

I suspect that the end of 7th density is a singularity, meaning it is the point where infinity IS Aware in totality and is all octaves EVERYTHING, it needs not be linear.

This is speculation with some intuition.

Edit: Well i am doing this just for fun i guess lol

[βαθμιαίος]

I was thinking...
if in the 7th density we are ONE with infinity, basically we are everything, so not just the next octave but all octaves linked to that point that is infinity itself.

Like a singularity encompassing All That IS.

Does Ra disagree with that ?

No, I don't think so, though they might add that we are always one with infinity, in whatever density. It's just that in seventh density it becomes more obvious.

[unity100]

I'm not sure that your distinction between infinity and intelligent infinity is all that convincing. Ra doesn't describe intelligent infinity's intelligence as a distortion. The first distortion, according to them, is free will.

Infinity became aware. There is no longer, as I understand it, any part of infinity that is not aware or intelligent.

just notice the 2 blocks above contradict.

if infinity wasnt aware before, it means that it wasnt infinity. for something to be infinite, it has to be everything that there can be, and also be nothing. ie, infinity.

for infinity to be able to be aware AFTER a certain state, and also to still have been infinity BEFORE that state, infinity would need to have split into 2 principles or states, aware and unaware. thus, before 'becoming aware', it would have been still infinity (because it was both aware and unaware), and so its infinity status would be actual.

that would still mean that, above the aware and unaware parts of infinity, there is still a unified infinity.

Very true. However, the concepts of infinity/unity and the illusory nature of our experience are so basic to their teaching that I doubt that those are concepts they'd forsake. But, by all means, if they don't work for you, please let them go.

infinity is basic ? entire existence is experiencing infinite numbers of octaves discovering it. it is by no means basic.

moreover, there are many things, ra could expand on, even without being asked, encouraging the questioner, yet they havent. there are also things that they have withheld, regardless of questioning. just because something is not expanded on the material, does not mean that it is as it is and no more.

This gets back to the concept of a holographic universe. It's pretty fundamental to Ra's teaching, as I understand it. We have discussed the quote where Ra says that "any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity." Here's how they put it another time: "the unity of the Creator exists within the smallest portion of any material created by Love, much less in a self-aware being."

again, 'containing a picture' or image, and actually BEING the entirety, are two different things.

had it been the latter, there would be no point in multiple entities existing, because all would be the same, and there would be just one infinity.

and yet here we are, infinite entities experiencing an infinite creation.

It's definitely a reality, but the point is that it's an illusory reality.

firstly nothing called 'illusion' exists. 'existence' is, as you see it in front of you. everything that is experienced and observed are part of infinity, also, the infinite intelligence. they cannot be 'none', because then infinity wouldnt be infinity.

secondly we are spending an infinity in that 'illusory' reality. even we use the faulty term of 'illusion', if one is spending an infinity in that illusion, it means that illusion is real.

changing of the state of existence and their relations and a future state having little resemblance to the earlier does not make the current moment any less real.

That's fine, that you say that, as long as you're clear that it's different than what Ra says, which is that each of us has access to infinite capability.

again the same thing -> having access to infinite capability is different than BEING infinite. or infinity itself.

you have all access to infinite capability. but realizing that capability will take an infinite amount of time.

therefore, at any given moment, even if 8 octaves later than these, you are still not infinite.

---

I suspect that the end of 7th density is a singularity, meaning it is the point where infinity IS Aware in totality and is all octaves EVERYTHING, it needs not be linear.

linearity nonlinearity aside,

had 7th density of this or any other octave, been infinite, there wouldnt be more than 1 octave after that one.

[Peregrinus]

I think this is pertanent.

Ra: I am Ra. The vibratory distortion of sound, faith, is perhaps one of the stumbling blocks between those of what we may call the infinite path and those of the finite proving/understanding.

You are precisely correct in your understanding of the congruency of faith and intelligent infinity; however, one is a spiritual term, the other more acceptable perhaps to the conceptual framework distortions of those who seek with measure and pen.

[unity100]

The finite we have here is not relevant to measurement and pens. It is relevant to the basis of existence, and probably even goes as far to create the mechanics in which there can occur entities as separate consciousness focuses with free will. the duality of existence. yin and yang. finite and infinite.

[βαθμιαίος]

if infinity wasnt aware before, it means that it wasnt infinity. for something to be infinite, it has to be everything that there can be, and also be nothing. ie, infinity.

for infinity to be able to be aware AFTER a certain state, and also to still have been infinity BEFORE that state, infinity would need to have split into 2 principles or states, aware and unaware. thus, before 'becoming aware', it would have been still infinity (because it was both aware and unaware), and so its infinity status would be actual.

that would still mean that, above the aware and unaware parts of infinity, there is still a unified infinity.

Again, you're really disagreeing with Ra. Ra said "infinity became aware," clearly implying that in their understanding there was a state before which infinity was unaware. They also said that first density recapitulates intelligent infinity in its discovery of awareness.

infinity is basic ? entire existence is experiencing infinite numbers of octaves discovering it. it is by no means basic.

What I said was that infinity/unity is basic to Ra's teaching, and yes, it is basic to that. It's the whole premise of the Law of One. "You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One."

moreover, there are many things, ra could expand on, even without being asked, encouraging the questioner, yet they havent. there are also things that they have withheld, regardless of questioning. just because something is not expanded on the material, does not mean that it is as it is and no more.

Ra expanded on the concept of unity/infinity at length, working it in whenever they could into their answers to Don's questions.

again, 'containing a picture' or image, and actually BEING the entirety, are two different things.

And again, they didn't say "contains a picture." They said "contains the One Creator which is infinity." You are getting confused by the parenthetical clause. Maybe the second quote will be less confusing: "the unity of the Creator exists ... within a self-aware being." I'm not sure how they could say it more clearly.

had it been the latter, there would be no point in multiple entities existing, because all would be the same, and there would be just one infinity.

Exactly. There is just one infinity, and there is no point other than that intelligent infinity decided to explore finity.

and yet here we are, infinite entities experiencing an infinite creation.

Yes, and ain't it grand? We don't know, though, that the creation is infinite, at least not from 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."

What is infinite is us.

firstly nothing called 'illusion' exists.

Again, you disagree with Ra.

secondly we are spending an infinity in that 'illusory' reality. even we use the faulty term of 'illusion', if one is spending an infinity in that illusion, it means that illusion is real.

We're not spending an infinity in the illusion. It has a beginning and an end. It's true that, according to Ra, there will be another illusion after this one has coalesced, but that doesn't make any of the illusions less illusory.

again the same thing -> having access to infinite capability is different than BEING infinite. or infinity itself.

The infinity is within; that's why we have access to it.

you have all access to infinite capability. but realizing that capability will take an infinite amount of time.

Actually, the capability can be realized in a moment. "Enlightenment is, of the moment, an opening to intelligent infinity. It can only be accomplished by the self, for the self. Another self cannot teach/learn enlightenment, but only teach/learn information, inspiration, or a sharing of love, of mystery, of the unknown that makes the other-self reach out and begin the seeking process that ends in a moment, but who can know when an entity will open the gate to the present?"

therefore, at any given moment, even if 8 octaves later than these, you are still not infinite.

Another disagreement with Ra, who says you are infinite right now.

[unity100]

Again, you're really disagreeing with Ra. Ra said "infinity became aware," clearly implying that in their understanding there was a state before which infinity was unaware. They also said that first density recapitulates intelligent infinity in its discovery of awareness.

Ra expanded on the concept of unity/infinity at length, working it in whenever they could into their answers to Don's questions.

Again, you disagree with Ra.

Another disagreement with Ra, who says you are infinite right now.

i have no problems in disagreeing with Ra. ra already left many things unexplained, either not to infringe upon adept's work, or to prevent intrusions to free will.

not to mention that they didnt answer what was not asked, except in rare occasions, also adding that they dont want to be bringers of unchanging dogma.

its up to us to discover.

And again, they didn't say "contains a picture." They said "contains the One Creator which is infinity." You are getting confused by the parenthetical clause. Maybe the second quote will be less confusing: "the unity of the Creator exists ... within a self-aware being." I'm not sure how they could say it more clearly.

towards inside, maybe yes. towards outside, no.

it is apparent that, you, me, are not equivalent to infinity, since we are changing, morphing and evolving.

there may be infinite universes inside us, yet, there are also infinite universes outside us. this makes us, not infinite. there is an infinity outside us.

had it been the latter, there would be no point in multiple entities existing, because all would be the same, and there would be just one infinity.

Exactly. There is just one infinity, and there is no point other than that intelligent infinity decided to explore finity.

irrelevant. infinity, by definition, needs to have finity in its own self already. also, it has to have the 'exploration of finity' concept within itself, already present.

it cannot explore anything. it is already the thing to explore, the exploration and the exploration of that thing performed and done. not to mention that it is also the exploration of that thing that is being done and is going to be done.

this is what infinity means. anything that is different from this state, is not infinite.

Yes, and ain't it grand? We don't know, though, that the creation is infinite, at least not from 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."

What is infinite is us.

mistake. that says we dont know whether the 'universe' is infinite there. not existence, or creation. universe refers to the universe we are in as of now, containing these galaxies. not creation.

We're not spending an infinity in the illusion. It has a beginning and an end. It's true that, according to Ra, there will be another illusion after this one has coalesced, but that doesn't make any of the illusions less illusory.

does it have a beginning and an end ?

so, it ends when you merge with infinite intelligence at the end of 7th density this octave.

but then, another octave filled with 'illusion' begins. then it ends, another one filled with various other illusory existences begins.

so it goes until eternity.

basically, infinite amount of time is spent in illusions. that makes that 'illusion' infinite in scope, therefore, a reality.

The infinity is within; that's why we have access to it.

explain then please. not to mention that 'having access' is not equivalent to being, you even need to explain the concept that 'we have "access" to infinity, because infinity is within'.

Actually, the capability can be realized in a moment. "Enlightenment is, of the moment, an opening to intelligent infinity. It can only be accomplished by the self, for the self. Another self cannot teach/learn enlightenment, but only teach/learn information, inspiration, or a sharing of love, of mystery, of the unknown that makes the other-self reach out and begin the seeking process that ends in a moment, but who can know when an entity will open the gate to the present?"

enlightenment != infinity.

[βαθμιαίος]

i have no problems in disagreeing with Ra.

The problem is you are disagreeing with the basis of their teaching. It doesn't really matter if you agree with the trivia if you disagree with the fundament.

there may be infinite universes inside us, yet, there are also infinite universes outside us. this makes us, not infinite. there is an infinity outside us.

The Infinite Creator is within us. Logically, in order to contain it, we have to be infinite.

it cannot explore anything. it is already the thing to explore, the exploration and the exploration of that thing performed and done. not to mention that it is also the exploration of that thing that is being done and is going to be done.

I think you're missing the importance of free will. Infinity can and does explore. Nothing is known because of the infinite variety of interactions possible when free will meets free will.

this is what infinity means. anything that is different from this state, is not infinite.

Infinity is all that exists. Logically, it has to be. This means that in reality there is only one thing: infinity/unity. The paradox at the heart of Ra's teaching is that each seemingly separate entity actually contains the entirety of that infinity/unity. That means that when you and I discuss, it's actually the Creator discussing with Itself.

Yes, and ain't it grand? We don't know, though, that the creation is infinite, at least not from 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."

What is infinite is us.

mistake. that says we dont know whether the 'universe' is infinite there. not existence, or creation. universe refers to the universe we are in as of now, containing these galaxies. not creation.

The point that you're missing is that they say "there is no end to your selves." No end = infinite.

basically, infinite amount of time is spent in illusions. that makes that 'illusion' infinite in scope, therefore, a reality.

This doesn't follow. An infinite amount of illusion is still illusion.

The infinity is within; that's why we have access to it.

explain then please. not to mention that 'having access' is not equivalent to being, you even need to explain the concept that 'we have "access" to infinity, because infinity is within'.

The quote I gave (below) explains, as do the various ones I gave you in the Ra-Horakte thread on faith. You can open the door to the present moment (= the door to infinity) in a moment. The question is when you will do so.

Actually, the capability can be realized in a moment. "Enlightenment is, of the moment, an opening to intelligent infinity. It can only be accomplished by the self, for the self. Another self cannot teach/learn enlightenment, but only teach/learn information, inspiration, or a sharing of love, of mystery, of the unknown that makes the other-self reach out and begin the seeking process that ends in a moment, but who can know when an entity will open the gate to the present?"

enlightenment != infinity.

The point is, enlightenment is an opening to infinity, which is what we were discussing.

[unity100]

The problem is you are disagreeing with the basis of their teaching. It doesn't really matter if you agree with the trivia if you disagree with the fundament.

the basis of Ra's message with this material for this particular space/time continuum of this planet is, 'everything is one because there is one infinity'.

the nature of that infinity, the details, are not contained as basis. discovering and learning the details are left to the seeker.

The Infinite Creator is within us. Logically, in order to contain it, we have to be infinite.

infinite creator is not infinity. that detail aside,

an infinite creator being within US, as in us all, would mean that we all together constitute infinity. in that way, it would be true and valid.

however, your meaning and approach is, 'because i have infinite creator within me, i am infinity'. which becomes wrong, because there are other entities than you in the infinity, manifesting as separate entities. since you dont contain the bird flying outside your window within you at this moment, it means that you do not contain the infinity outside you, illusory, or not. else, the bird outside would be able to contain infinity inside in and out, and there would be no point to anything existing but that bird. that can be repeated for any separately manifesting entity.

'in spirit, principle' and 'in actual manifestation' are two different things.

I think you're missing the importance of free will. Infinity can and does explore. Nothing is known because of the infinite variety of interactions possible when free will meets free will.

free will, is also a concept/entity within infinity. exploration, and all the explored, and all the explored things' exploredness also have to be present within the infinity before and after that act of exploration, for infinity to be infinite before that act.

therefore, infinity couldnt explore anything, because, it is already the thing to be explored, the explorer, and the state of exploredness before that exploration can even happen.

even the concept of 'happening' is something within infinity.

that is because infinity, is infinite, and therefore has to contain everything conceptually.

it doesnt interact, because the concept of interaction, and infinite amount of interactions that are possible in between infinite amount of entities/interactors are already present within itself.

the knowledge/understanding/state of those interactions having happened and full realization of them, are also concepts that are present within the infinity.

that is because, infinity has to be infinite in all regards in order to be able to be infinity.

this is why it cannot explore anything.

Infinity is all that exists. Logically, it has to be. This means that in reality there is only one thing: infinity/unity. The paradox at the heart of Ra's teaching is that each seemingly separate entity actually contains the entirety of that infinity/unity. That means that when you and I discuss, it's actually the Creator discussing with Itself.

'existence' is even itself a concept within infinity. you are still fixed on conceptualizing and analyzing existing things, apparently. the concept which we know as existence, is one of the infinite number of concepts within infinity. infinity means that, there are other concepts than 'existing', in regard to the existing entity, would be present in infinity.

what you call as 'creator', even itself, is an entity/concept within the infinity. the reason it is able to experience, explore, is this. it is because it isnt infinite, by being intelligent, differentiated from infinity.

The point that you're missing is that they say "there is no end to your selves." No end = infinite.

that is a hollow justification and a narrow analysis.

being no end to oneself in regard to time and space does not mean the entity is infinity in its entirety.

had it been otherwise, we wouldnt go through octaves, change, manifest, and become limited even if 'illusorily'. yet we are. that means, even if our existence, and probably inner world and future outer world and manifestation is infinite, (and it is), we are still not infinity itself, not in any given time/space, even in 100 octaves later.

basically, infinite amount of time is spent in illusions. that makes that 'illusion' infinite in scope, therefore, a reality.

This doesn't follow. An infinite amount of illusion is still illusion.

an infinite amount of illusion means infinity spent in illusion. it makes what you call illusion, a part of manifestation towards infinite time. it means, at an infinite time into the future, you will still be experiencing something what you choose to dub as 'illusion'. yet, even if you dub it illusion or not, it is going to be a part of your existence towards eternity.

that makes the derogatory 'illusion' dubbing, redundant.

The quote I gave (below) explains, as do the various ones I gave you in the Ra-Horakte thread on faith. You can open the door to the present moment (= the door to infinity) in a moment. The question is when you will do so.

The point is, enlightenment is an opening to infinity, which is what we were discussing.

then, it doesnt explain anything in regard to justification.

opening a door to something does not make the entrant the thing door opens to. it may lead to an understanding, realization of the thing, or, it may lead to a unification with that thing, acting as one, yet, it does not make either the door or the entrant the thing the door opened to.

it may open up to infinite possibilities, yet, it doesnt make the entrant infinite possibilities itself.

faith, trust, and acting in perfect harmony and conjunction as co creator with infinite intelligence, does not make one infinite intelligence. it makes the entity one, harmonious, synchronous with it.

[Quantum]

I have been following the conversations and thread with great interest. I must admit Unity that your intellect, logic, and focus are admirable. But I also wonder if like the well honed blade it is if it is also capable of cutting both ways rather than one, i.e. as in the double edged sword versus the single edged. To that end what I am driving at is that your ability to reason inductively from the particular to the general as regards the LOO Material, although otherwise solid, sharp and sound, is as difficult to serve deductively from the general to the particular with respect to esoterica. If I may invite you to try this on, as if nothing more than an article of clothing to see if it fits. Let me see if I may gently nudge a suggestion. Admittedly I am entering rather late into the dialogue, but I am wondering if I may be allowed to suggest the following to see your response as well as your ability to bend your mind as much as your keen talent of focusing it, which is more than self-evident. The more logical course for esoterica might be implied to be that of adducive reasoning vs abductive reasoning wherein creativity and intuition are required as opposed to either generalities understood or implied versus particulars forever unknown, thus rendering deduction and induction, although useful, not fully capable for the material at hand.

You state:

remember that Ra says negatives are always 1/10 the number of the positive entities in the galaxy (so i remember it as galaxy), but, they are generally 10 times stronger in polarization due to polarization requirements, therefore, it ends up being balanced.

You then cite the below Ra quote as evidence to your above logic that STS must as a result be 10 times stronger (see below):

Questioner: What is the density of the Orion group?
Ra: I am Ra. Like the Confederation, the densities of the mass consciousnesses which comprise that group are varied. There are a very few third density, a larger number of fourth density, a similarly large number of fifth density, and very few sixth-density entities comprising this organization. Their numbers are perhaps one-tenth ours at any point in the space/time continuum as the problem of spiritual entropy causes them to experience constant disintegration of their social memory complexes. Their power is the same as ours. The Law of One blinks neither at the light nor the darkness, but is available for service to others and service to self. However, service to others results in service to self, thus preserving and further harmonizing the distortions of those entities seeking intelligent infinity through these disciplines.

I would invite another interpretation into the game with respect to the above as an exercise in said bending of mind and the ability to invert ones thinking for positive outcomes. Let us as an exercise, as much as a dialogue, as though two exercises in one, view this Ra quote in another light. STS may require "not that they be 10 times stronger," but that as a necessary requirement to "negate or balance entropy" that they must exert 10 times more energy to maintain equilibrium. Imagine instead that STS must needs exert 10 times more energy in the effort of maintaining the balance that STO otherwise requires as 10 times less. STO requires 10 times less the effort as a result of not attempting to control. Agreement is less demanding than is control. Control in fact is an effort requiring 95% to be effective, whereas agreement requires only 51% to be effective. In this light it is the key words "Control vs Agreement" and not "Strength vs Weakness" that are paramount.

Example: Two or more drivers in an automobile need only agree at 51% to arrive at their agreed to destination; whereas two or more drivers in an automobile need be controlled 95% in order to arrive at the "controllers" destination. Although in the case of STO, 51% requires less effort, it is every bit as difficult for two or more to agree at 51%, this to the same extent that it is for STS to control at 95%. In this context 51% actually by induction equals 95%.This thus instead inverts the balance you otherwise rightfully seek through logically deducing as a means of reasoning that STS requires 10 times "more strength" versus "exertion" as a well thought out and perceptive find on your part. Their power (STS) is indeed the same as STO as you state, but not because they are 10 times stronger as a result of your assumption that they need be due to being 10 times less in numbers, but rather due to the spiritual entropy they encounter in the power they must expend to control in order to maintain overall homeostasis. Homeostasis is achieved wherein 51% = 95%. In other words, they have greater inertia to overcome as a result of their chosen path.

Now... to return to deductive reasoning, this would very nicely explain, like a silken hand fitted into a velvet glove, why STS at mid 6th must give up their chosen STS path and instead enfold themselves and merge with STO. Where their 95%, and/or presumably more after 3D, is herculean, they may logically encounter ever greater entropy up the ladder of sub-densities and then full densities, this more so after 3D(?) to the point that they "hit the wall of entropy" so much so, so to speak, that they can traverse no further, this due directly to said entropy in the Ra quote up to and presumably more than 95% (perhaps up to 98%-99% - who knows?) at mid 6th requiring merger as a result.

Consider the axiom of inertia as the trigger for the amount of control exerted in order to "maintain" said control versus its opposite of "maintaining agreement" as key to the adductive/abductive reasoning invitation for you to consider. The STS gentleman attempting to move the Pink Elephant in the room all by his lonesome must do so by sheer exertion of force and will versus his counter parts in STO who may do so more elegantly with only 51% agreement. This is not to suggest that moving Pink Elephants requires 51% strength. It is only to suggest that 51% agreement is required in STO every bit as much to even effectuate a successful STO cookie sale in the church parking lot. It is thus important in this exercise to maintain focus in the example in that this in no way suggests that STO can not also move said elephants by himself. He can through his magical ability every bit as much and which may very well take the same 95%. But why should STO even consider moving said elephants by himself when it would be more efficient to do so with the assistance of his mates and comrades instead? But lets not get lost in Pink Elephants given we are not moving boulders as much as the more non-tangential primary concept of "Cooperation" versus "Control". The example of said elephant moving is only to non-tangentially point out that elephant moving by STO's in cooperation is as highly unlikely in unison given it is as difficult to get two together in agreement much less the many. Thus the words in Matthew 18:19 "If two of you agree on earth concerning anything you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you..."...notwithstanding that it may have been interpreted also as a nebbish "Oy-Vey" for the difficulty implied as much as its truth. The dude knew what he was talking about.

Now if I may, to another point as an exercise and invitation into adductive/abductive reasoning versus your keen ability of inductive/deductive reasoning, as well as the overall objective of additionally shedding light on a very interesting topic as well, thus again serving two exercise in one. You state below and throughout your posts:

: therefore, at any given moment, even if 8 octaves later than these, you are still not infinite.

βαθμιαίος offers as a wonderful counterpoint in Ra's own words:

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."

To this wonderful Ra quote that βαθμιαίος found as relates to your point that we are not infinite, I wonder again if you may bend your mind as much as you are able to hone it and focus it to see this also in a different light? Case in point: Ra states explicitly, not implicitly, that the Universe has yet to be proven or disproven to be infinite. However he goes on to state as explicitly that there is no end to ourselves. Here then is the exercise: rather than imagining or visualizing the Universe or Infinity to be something that "we are contained in", I invite you instead to adduce/abduce the fact of what Ra implicitly infers when stating explicitly that "WE ARE INDEED INFINITE". With that said, invert your thinking process and attempt to instead, like the same article of clothing, try this on for fun. It is "WE" that are Infinite. In other words, "INFINITE INFINITY" is contained within ourselves, not we in IT. The Universe is contained within ourselves, not we in the Universe. Try this on for fun for a moment before rejecting it too quickly and see how it fits. What if we as the Creator's prize are in fact the Creator. In other words, there never was a nothing before IT, given that clearly "Nothingness" never existed. There was always something. That "Something" was/is IT. IT was/is Infinite. IT, having nothing other than ITself as All, divided ITself into many selves. We are those many selves. WE by deductive reasoning therefore are IT. It is Infinite, ergo We are infinite = US as IT. Thus we are INFINITE.

What I note is that you must necessarily by deductive/inductive reasoning compartmentalize the Infinite as something other than ourselves, or perhaps that the Infinite is indeed something that WE are contained IN. But what if the Infinite is in fact contained in us? Now, one step further, neither statement is more true than the other as both are the same. We are in IT (infinity) as in we are in ourselves, as much as IT is in us. Thus are the two concepts, although never separated in fact, unified in mind (which almost necessarily divides everything in order to understand it, but often then is unable to reunify it once having done so...much like myself working on the car as a teenager and invariably always ending up with a bucket of nuts and bolts left over after the fact).

This is an invitation only. Were I betting man, I would wager that the deductive process, which by necessity and definition must dissect and compartmentalize as a means to and for comparative analysis, will by habit nonetheless dissect and compartmentalize to compare all offered, thus forcing you to the same conclusions. However, the exercise would be lost as a result. Were I a faithful man I would wager that your intuition and creativity alone, assisted by virtue of your intellect, might accept the offer....and first try it on.

Faithfully yours,

Q

[unity100]

You state:

remember that Ra says negatives are always 1/10 the number of the positive entities in the galaxy (so i remember it as galaxy), but, they are generally 10 times stronger in polarization due to polarization requirements, therefore, it ends up being balanced.

You then cite the below Ra quote as evidence to your above logic that STS must as a result be 10 times stronger (see below):

Questioner: What is the density of the Orion group?
Ra: I am Ra. Like the Confederation, the densities of the mass consciousnesses which comprise that group are varied. There are a very few third density, a larger number of fourth density, a similarly large number of fifth density, and very few sixth-density entities comprising this organization. Their numbers are perhaps one-tenth ours at any point in the space/time continuum as the problem of spiritual entropy causes them to experience constant disintegration of their social memory complexes. Their power is the same as ours. The Law of One blinks neither at the light nor the darkness, but is available for service to others and service to self. However, service to others results in service to self, thus preserving and further harmonizing the distortions of those entities seeking intelligent infinity through these disciplines.

I would invite another interpretation into the game with respect to the above as an exercise in said bending of mind and the ability to invert ones thinking for positive outcomes. Let us as an exercise, as much as a dialogue, as though two exercises in one, view this Ra quote in another light. STS may require "not that they be 10 times stronger," but that as a necessary requirement to "negate or balance entropy" that they must exert 10 times more energy to maintain equilibrium. Imagine instead that STS must needs exert 10 times more energy in the effort of maintaining the balance that STO otherwise requires as 10 times less. STO requires 10 times less the effort as a result of not attempting to control. Agreement is less demanding than is control. Control in fact is an effort requiring 95% to be effective, whereas agreement requires only 51% to be effective. In this light it is the key words "Control vs Agreement" and not "Strength vs Weakness" that are paramount.

Example: Two or more drivers in an automobile need only agree at 51% to arrive at their agreed to destination; whereas two or more drivers in an automobile need be controlled 95% in order to arrive at the "controllers" destination. Although in the case of STO, 51% requires less effort, it is every bit as difficult for two or more to agree at 51%, this to the same extent that it is for STS to control at 95%. In this context 51% actually by induction equals 95%.This thus instead inverts the balance you otherwise rightfully seek through logically deducing as a means of reasoning that STS requires 10 times "more strength" versus "exertion" as a well thought out and perceptive find on your part. Their power (STS) is indeed the same as STO as you state, but not because they are 10 times stronger as a result of your assumption that they need be due to being 10 times less in numbers, but rather due to the spiritual entropy they encounter in the power they must expend to control in order to maintain overall homeostasis. Homeostasis is achieved wherein 51% = 95%. In other words, they have greater inertia to overcome as a result of their chosen path.

negative and positive polarization is the action of absorbing or emitting energy.

51% positive, and 95% negative polarization defines minimum negative, and positive. this, as Ra says, gives the potential to do work, in the ensuing densities to these focuses.

because everything is energy, and energy manipulates energy, and focusing and usage of energy in whatever way, happens with concentrating of that focus of infinite intelligence, the equation directly transforms into power of the manifesting entity.

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

if we move to Ra's quote about entropy ... ra says that entropy causes disintegration of negative complexes, therefore maintaining balance. even if you take the entropy as the thing maintaining this balance, it would still mean that the balance is kept at a point where the negative entities are 1/10 of positives, but equal in power, and therefore laws of balance blinking to neither side. that would mean, if, the number of negative entities compared to positives goes above 1/10 of positives in fraction, and the number of positive entities do not increase proportionally, entropy would cause the negatives lose enough of their numbers/power, to get to balance point.

the car driving analogy here is misplaced, it misses an important point :

negative is not about 'control'. it is one of its traits, but it is not something as simple as that. negative polarization is about absorbing light. it is an energy matter, the potential which is used for work.

an entity emits 51% light. this is its polarity, its power. another absorbs 95% light. this is its polarity and its power.

therefore, regardless of how we take the balance situation Ra speaks of, we have the following situation :

power of negative entities are equal to positives in totality, but they are always 1/10th the number of positives. and balance is maintained.

that means, if the power of entire negative population is divided into negative population, that means the average power available to the average negative is 10 times the power available to average positive.

there are considerations in regard to distribution of that power, it is possible that the ones higher in the pile in a negative hierarchy have more power, the average grunt has less power, and the resulting power ends up equal due to synergy of both sides inside themselves.

however, even if we just take the graduation requirements of the polarities, we see that a positive entity emits 51% of energy available, and negative absorbs 95%. considering that the entities are equal strength focuses (ie, one is not a giant sea creature living in a massive ocean planet, and the other is a dwarf entity on land), that would mean that one of them, energy wise, is stronger than the other, since there is 44% difference in their polarity.

Now... to return to deductive reasoning, this would very nicely explain, like a silken hand fitted into a velvet glove, why STS at mid 6th must give up their chosen STS path and instead enfold themselves and merge with STO. Where their 95%, and/or presumably more after 3D, is herculean, they may logically encounter ever greater entropy up the ladder of sub-densities and then full densities, this more so after 3D(?) to the point that they "hit the wall of entropy" so much so, so to speak, that they can traverse no further, this due directly to said entropy in the Ra quote up to and presumably more than 95% (perhaps up to 98%-99% - who knows?) at mid 6th requiring merger as a result.

two entropies are not necessarily same. the entropy the negative 6 d entity experiences is, transplanting itself in the place of infinite energy as the entirety of infinite energy.

the other entropy is about energy balance.

Consider the axiom of inertia as the trigger for the amount of control exerted in order to "maintain" said control versus its opposite of "maintaining agreement" as key to the adductive/abductive reasoning invitation for you to consider. The STS gentleman attempting to move the Pink Elephant in the room all by his lonesome must do so by sheer exertion of force and will versus his counter parts in STO who may do so more elegantly with only 51% agreement. This is not to suggest that moving Pink Elephants requires 51% strength. It is only to suggest that 51% agreement is required in STO every bit as much to even effectuate a successful STO cookie sale in the church parking lot. It is thus important in this exercise to maintain focus in the example in that this in no way suggests that STO can not also move said elephants by himself. He can through his magical ability every bit as much and which may very well take the same 95%. But why should STO even consider moving said elephants by himself when it would be more efficient to do so with the assistance of his mates and comrades instead? But lets not get lost in Pink Elephants given we are not moving boulders as much as the more non-tangential primary concept of "Cooperation" versus "Control". The example of said elephant moving is only to non-tangentially point out that elephant moving by STO's in cooperation is as highly unlikely in unison given it is as difficult to get two together in agreement much less the many. Thus the words in Matthew 18:19 "If two of you agree on earth concerning anything you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you..."...notwithstanding that it may have been interpreted also as a nebbish "Oy-Vey" for the difficulty implied as much as its truth. The dude knew what he was talking about.

this approach is erroneous, since it assumes negative polarity is control of others, and self. that is just one of the aspects of it.

in pure form, negative polarity is absorbing light. it is directly relevant to energy. emitting or absorbing energy is potential, and it is power that does work.

Now if I may, to another point as an exercise and invitation into adductive/abductive reasoning versus your keen ability of inductive/deductive reasoning, as well as the overall objective of additionally shedding light on a very interesting topic as well, thus again serving two exercise in one. You state below and throughout your posts:

: therefore, at any given moment, even if 8 octaves later than these, you are still not infinite.

βαθμιαίος offers as a wonderful counterpoint in Ra's own words:

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."

To this wonderful Ra quote that βαθμιαίος found as relates to your point that we are not infinite, I wonder again if you may bend your mind as much as you are able to hone it and focus it to see this also in a different light? Case in point: Ra states explicitly, not implicitly, that the Universe has yet to be proven or disproven to be infinite. However he goes on to state as explicitly that there is no end to ourselves. Here then is the exercise: rather than imagining or visualizing the Universe or Infinity to be something that "we are contained in", I invite you instead to adduce/abduce the fact of what Ra implicitly infers when stating explicitly that "WE ARE INDEED INFINITE". With that said, invert your thinking process and attempt to instead, like the same article of clothing, try this on for fun. It is "WE" that are Infinite. In other words, "INFINITE INFINITY" is contained within ourselves, not we in IT. The Universe is contained within ourselves, not we in the Universe. Try this on for fun for a moment before rejecting it too quickly and see how it fits. What if we as the Creator's prize are in fact the Creator. In other words, there never was a nothing before IT, given that clearly "Nothingness" never existed. There was always something. That "Something" was/is IT. IT was/is Infinite. IT, having nothing other than ITself as All, divided ITself into many selves. We are those many selves. WE by deductive reasoning therefore are IT. It is Infinite, ergo We are infinite = US as IT. Thus we are INFINITE.

'no end to yourselves' does not necessarily mean 'you are infinite'. it is not only possible, but logical that Ra meant that there is no end to your existence, that, the selves of entities will keep existing forever, in an infinite creation, morphing and changing and evolving.

in regard to universe, it is about universe. not existence, or infinity. existence, is infinity. not only that, but Ra talks about infinite octaves. since each octave is a creation, it means that there are infinite creations/octaves throughout eternity.

universe may, or may not be infinite. its not relevant in this context.

the possibility of an infinite inner world, is not impossible, but actually probable, because, there is no end to act of creating and expanding. therefore, any focus is capable of creating infinite amounts of concepts and manifestations towards eternity. one could be able to say that entities will be able to forever exist and create and expand, therefore they are infinite.

however, this still wouldnt make them the entirety of infinity existing outside them. having no end, and having infinite potential, does not mean that the entities are, in any given state of them at any given point, are infinity itself.

not to mention that, the concept of 'inner' world, and anything associated with it, are just mere concepts within infinity. the very concepts of 'inside' and 'containing' are just two of the infinite amount of concepts/entities within infinity in the first place. so, the 'i contain infinity in myself' is a very, very very limited and finite expression from the start.

What I note is that you must necessarily by deductive/inductive reasoning compartmentalize the Infinite as something other than ourselves, or perhaps that the Infinite is indeed something that WE are contained IN. But what if the Infinite is in fact contained in us? Now, one step further, neither statement is more true than the other as both are the same. We are in IT (infinity) as in we are in ourselves, as much as IT is in us. Thus are the two concepts, although never separated in fact, unified in mind (which almost necessarily divides everything in order to understand it, but often then is unable to reunify it once having done so...much like myself working on the car as a teenager and invariably always ending up with a bucket of nuts and bolts left over after the fact).

if infinity was contained in you, there would be no possibility of experiencing anything 'outside' of you, even if it was an 'illusory' experience.

the very concept of being able to experience something outside your own self is itself a concept within infinity. since it is a concept, and you are experiencing it, illusory or not, it means that you are not infinity. because, you are experiencing something, your state is changing, you are able to interact with something 'else'.

if you were infinity, you wouldnt be able to experience anything, because everything would have been experienced, being experienced, and is going to be experienced, and all of these would even be infinite levels below you, because the concept of 'experiencing' and all its counterparts and infinite variations would already be parts of your infinity.

in short ; you cannot be infinity, as long as you are aware of yourself as an entity that does anything. regardless of how you dub this.

the only way to be infinite, is to be infinity. there is no other than infinity that is infinity.

This is an invitation only. Were I betting man, I would wager that the deductive process, which by necessity and definition must dissect and compartmentalize as a means to and for comparative analysis, will by habit nonetheless dissect and compartmentalize to compare all offered, thus forcing you to the same conclusions. However, the exercise would be lost as a result. Were I a faithful man I would wager that your intuition and creativity alone, assisted by virtue of your intellect, might accept the offer....and first try it on.

infinity is not something that is particular to any kind of thinking or approach.

infinity, is infinite.

that means that, if you are in ANY state other than being fully infinite at all times, you are not infinity. it doesnt matter whether this is articulated and justified by calling the finiteness 'illusory', or dubbing infinity as 'contained inside', or anything else.

had you been in any way infinity, you would be infinite, and wouldnt even be able to interact with anything else, since all interactions and the interactors would be you, all interactions have been done, are going to be done, and are being done, and not only these, but all the counterparts of these, would be present within you in harmony.

however you are interacting with us. you are, therefore, finite.

---

i will sum up our situation here in a simple manner :

ra says all the densities in this octave are created by infinite intelligence to contain a certain aspect/meaning/feeling of creation. 4 is about love (4th density love), 5 about light/wisdom, 6th about unity/cocreation/oneness.

and therefore, it is possible that just like how a 4 d entity may see love in everything and therefore mistake the infinite intelligence, the creator of this concept, as 'love', (as Ra tells us), it is also possible that 5th density entity may see the infinite intelligence as communication or free will, and, identify with that feeling meaning.

and also, 6th density entity, may do the same by identifying itself with infinite intelligence and its infinity, through the same mechanic that causes the entities to identify creation and themselves with the relevant aspect pertaining to their density due to the feeling of that density.

[Quantum]

H-m-m-m-m-m-m......you will forgive me Unity for suggesting that it seems you have hardly responded to many of the points I made but instead seem to have written almost exclusively as if in a continuous non-interuppted steam of consciousness mode on the same topic of 'Infinity' in every single post and in multiple threads ranging from "There isnt that much freedom it seems" to "Biased view of STS" to the "Ra-horakte" thread on Olio? Although you copied my statements in quotes you did not reply to much of the material quoted? I am left to gather that you either did not read my post or that you posted what is otherwise altogether preconceived material on your part? No doubt this was an oversight?

I am more than willing to engage and participate as relates to the points made or otherwise be left to sadly conclude, as I ended in my previous post wherein I wrote that were I a betting man assumption that you not only would be unable to try on the notions laid out as several neckties offered, and therefore be forced to return to your conclusions, but now perhaps worse that you did not even see them?

I shall eagerly await your response.....

L/L

Q

[Monica]

The Universe is contained within ourselves, not we in the Universe.

Why must one be negated in favor of the other? As Nassim Haramein's work illustrates, both are equally true.

But even this description is about the universe, not necessarily about infinity.

The concept is described by the Yin/Yang symbol. One side (Yang) could signify the ever-expanding UniVerse (outward, which we are contained in), while the other (Yin) could signify the infinite UniVerse within (as Nassim says, 'infinitely small' ie expanding in the other direction).

But neither of these is the Tao. Neither is The Tao illustrated by the stationary picture of the Yin/Yang symbol. Wholeness of reality is depicted by both Yin and Yang spinning and flowing one into the other.

Even this is not the eternal Tao (infinity). The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.

Quantum, what you are describing is infinity within a limit. Nassim describes this in detail.

If I am understanding unity100 correctly, what he is describing is infinity without limits, which includes all directions, all demarcations, all distortions....hence, without distortion.

---

The Infinite Creator is within us. Logically, in order to contain it, we have to be infinite.

Yes, we are infinite...within a limit. As long as we are 'we' we are a distortion.

The paradox at the heart of Ra's teaching is that each seemingly separate entity actually contains the entirety of that infinity/unity. That means that when you and I discuss, it's actually the Creator discussing with Itself.

As long as there is a 'you' and 'I' there is distortion.

The quote I gave (below) explains, as do the various ones I gave you in the Ra-Horakte thread on faith. You can open the door to the present moment (= the door to infinity) in a moment. The question is when you will do so.

True. The infinity within. But as long as there is still a 'you' there is still distortion.

[βαθμιαίος]

Yes, we are infinite...within a limit. As long as we are 'we' we are a distortion.
--
As long as there is a 'you' and 'I' there is distortion.
--
True. The infinity within. But as long as there is still a 'you' there is still distortion.

The point is, the "we," the "you," and the "I" are illusory. Infinity is the reality.

[Monica]

Yes, we are infinite...within a limit. As long as we are 'we' we are a distortion.
--
As long as there is a 'you' and 'I' there is distortion.
--
True. The infinity within. But as long as there is still a 'you' there is still distortion.

The point is, the "we," the "you," and the "I" are illusory. Infinity is the reality.

What is illusion? Can illusion be defined?

[Quantum]

The Universe is contained within ourselves, not we in the Universe.

Why must one be negated in favor of the other? As Nassim Haramein's work illustrates, both are equally true.

What I note is that you (speaking to unity) must necessarily by deductive/inductive reasoning compartmentalize the Infinite as something other than ourselves, or perhaps that the Infinite is indeed something that WE are contained IN. But what if the Infinite is in fact contained in us? Now, one step further, neither statement is more true than the other as both are the same.

Please see above in bold.This is exactly what I said. I am attempting first to lead Unity to the converse of his one way logic in the hopes of then bridging it to the other side. See?

negative and positive polarization is the action of absorbing or emitting energy.

I would challenge this by simply suggesting that negative is about withholding light as its primary definition, which may at times encompass absorbing others light, but only at great risk to themselves, which clearly is indicative that STS does not engage in absorption as a definition or in consistency. STS in short is in a constant state of withholding light, but is not in a constant state of absorbing light, ergo negative definition is withholding vs absorbing. The opposite of emitting is withholding, not absorbing, as in offering love vs withholding love. Would that your definition were true, STS then would in fact be absorbing STO love, which they will ultimately do at mid 6th when merged with STO, which defines the point of the withholding initially but then absorbing ultimately. It is in the attempt to depolarize STO that allows STS to increase polarity, even to the point of snuffing out said light of STO (which is the antithesis of absorbing), this as another point and reference to the definition that they do not absorb STO but rather only depolarize STO, thereby polarizing more greatly as STS.

51% positive, and 95% negative polarization defines minimum negative, and positive. this, as Ra says, gives the potential to do work, in the ensuing densities to these focuses.

51% defines only positive in 3D? 95% negative defines only 3D? Please cite reference where Ra states this is same in ensuing densities. I in fact presume and wrote previously that at mid 6th said entropy may indeed increase for STS thus causing necessity of enfoldment into STO. One may argue same holds true for STO and that said 51% also increases in order to ensue further up the ladder of densities.

if we move to Ra's quote about entropy ... ra says that entropy causes disintegration of negative complexes, therefore maintaining balance.

You misunderstand the quote? Disintegration does not serve STS to maintain balance. Neither does STS disintegration serve to maintain balance generally for STO. Surely you are not suggesting that STS disintegrates willingly? STS disintegrates as a result of the definition of entropy which is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a process. What is the process inferred of STS in this case? The concentrated power required to control,manipulate, etc self vs others. What else is the definition of entropy but same, i.e. energy dissipating as a result of its constant drain to control self or others?

even if you take the entropy as the thing maintaining this balance, it would still mean that the balance is kept at a point where the negative entities are 1/10 of positives, but equal in power, and therefore laws of balance blinking to neither side.

Forgive me if I sound confused or coy, but are we speaking "Unity100 Philosophy" or "The LOO and Ra Teachings?" "The Law of One blinks neither at the light nor the darkness," not " the laws of balance blink to neither side." Unity, I am not being pedantic when I suggest that these misquotes and misunderstandings are no small points on your part. They distort the LOO teachings if left unchecked as much as derail the conversations. If we wish to challenge the Ra Material or question it, perhaps we may do so more openly on a separate thread rather than mixing terms and confusing dialogues as though they were Ra statements. This method would be far more elegant, open, and on the table, so to speak, given that you openly and honestly state, for which I commend you (see below):

i have no problems in disagreeing with Ra.

negative is not about 'control'. it is one of its traits, but it is not something as simple as that. negative polarization is about absorbing light. it is an energy matter, the potential which is used for work.

I respectfully disagree once again as addressed above. STS withholds vs absorbs. To use your verbiage in this case, negative may absorb yes, but only as one of its traits. Absorption as stated above is not its primary directive.Withholding love is. If you disagree that love is not light then we perhaps have another reason to create another thread to the above suggestion of what are the "Disagreements to the Ra Material." I can not however think of a single reason for doing so as it defeats the purpose for being here in as much as one might naturally assume that we are in agreement with the Ra Material.

an entity emits 51% light. this is its polarity, its power. another absorbs 95% light. this is its polarity and its power.

same point as before (re: absorption vs withholding).

therefore, regardless of how we take the balance situation Ra speaks of, we have the following situation...power of negative entities are equal to positives in totality, but they are always 1/10th the number of positives. and balance is maintained. that means, if the power of entire negative population is divided into negative population, that means the average power available to the average negative is 10 times the power available to average positive.

If a premise, and/or premises are incorrect, irrespective of the intellectual argument or the adroitness of them put forth, it nevertheless then follows that so too are its conclusions, thus rendering them moot.

there are considerations in regard to distribution of that power, it is possible that the ones higher in the pile in a negative hierarchy have more power, the average grunt has less power, and the resulting power ends up equal due to synergy of both sides inside themselves.

I agree with this. But this is self evident in any system of hierarchy.

Now... to return to deductive reasoning, this would very nicely explain, like a silken hand fitted into a velvet glove, why STS at mid 6th must give up their chosen STS path and instead enfold themselves and merge with STO. Where their 95%, and/or presumably more after 3D, is herculean, they may logically encounter ever greater entropy up the ladder of sub-densities and then full densities, this more so after 3D to the point that they "hit the wall of entropy" so much so that they can traverse no further, this due directly to said entropy in the Ra quote up to and presumably more than 95% (perhaps up to 98%-99% - who knows?) at mid 6th requiring merger as a result.

two entropies are not necessarily same. the entropy the negative 6 d entity experiences is, transplanting itself in the place of infinite energy as the entirety of infinite energy. the other entropy is about energy balance

???? This does does not address my argument made above regarding your supposition of either absorption or entropy? I would only repeat the same as above. I would further add that you seem to be suggesting that STO also encounters disintegration/entropy through its efforts as well? I am willing to entertain this concept, but find no basis for same in the Ra quotes? I might even go so far as to dispute this notion as well (STO encounters entropy) as I do the absorption concept while utilizing one of your arguments against the other by suggesting that it is in fact STO that graciously, elegantly, gently, and efficaciously absorbs as much love as it emitts given that STO is the open heart (two way street) vs STS as the closed heart (one way street). It is in fact as a result of STS not being as efficient at absorbing light, given it more or less walls itself off from other selves through the act of withholding light, that STS disintegrates and struggles with entropy.

Consider the axiom of inertia as the trigger for the amount of control exerted in order to "maintain" said control versus its opposite of "maintaining agreement" as key to the adductive/abductive reasoning invitation for you to consider.

this approach is erroneous, since it assumes negative polarity is control of others, and self. that is just one of the aspects of it. in pure form, negative polarity is absorbing light. it is directly relevant to energy. emitting or absorbing energy is potential, and it is power that does work.

Here we are again, and throughout your text of absorption. I restate the point that if the premise is false that so too is its conclusion, i.e. absorption vs withholding.

Now if I may, to another point as an exercise and invitation into adductive/abductive reasoning versus your keen ability of inductive/deductive reasoning, as well as the overall objective of additionally shedding light on a very interesting topic as well, thus again serving two exercise in one. You state below and throughout your posts:
[quote= unity100]: therefore, at any given moment, even if 8 octaves later than these, you are still not infinite....

....infinity is not something that is particular to any kind of thinking or approach. infinity, is infinite.

Agreed. Infinity is Infinity. Agreed again that Infinity is furthermore not particular to any kind of thinking. I was not suggesting that it is. I was however very much suggesting that your thinking (as much as mine and everyone elses) is very very much something that is very much particular to your/our concepts of infinity or anything else for that matter.

and therefore, it is possible that just like how a 4 d entity may see love in everything and therefore mistake the infinite intelligence, the creator of this concept, as 'love', (as Ra tells us), it is also possible that 5th density entity may see the infinite intelligence as communication or free will, and, identify with that feeling meaning.and also, 6th density entity, may do the same by identifying itself with infinite intelligence and its infinity, through the same mechanic that causes the entities to identify creation and themselves with the relevant aspect pertaining to their density due to the feeling of that density.

A most interesting and well thought out consideration. I like it very much. Even our love for and concept of the Creator Itself is limited to the level we are at.

Q

[Monica]

The Universe is contained within ourselves, not we in the Universe.

Why must one be negated in favor of the other? As Nassim Haramein's work illustrates, both are equally true.

What I note is that you (speaking to unity) must necessarily by deductive/inductive reasoning compartmentalize the Infinite as something other than ourselves, or perhaps that the Infinite is indeed something that WE are contained IN. But what if the Infinite is in fact contained in us? Now, one step further, neither statement is more true than the other as both are the same.

Please see above in bold.This is exactly what I said. I am attempting first to lead Unity to the converse of his one way logic in the hopes of then bridging it to the other side. See?

My misunderstanding was based on your statement above: The Universe is contained within ourselves, not we in the Universe.

...which seems to be stating the opposite of your statement: neither statement is more true than the other as both are the same

It's that little word not.

[βαθμιαίος]

the basis of Ra's message with this material for this particular space/time continuum of this planet is, 'everything is one because there is one infinity'.

The basic teaching also includes the concepts that you are infinity and that the universe is holographic.

an infinite creator being within US, as in us all, would mean that we all together constitute infinity. in that way, it would be true and valid.

The infinite Creator is within each of us individually, and each of us individually constitutes infinity. I know it's hard to wrap your mind around, but Ra said that all begins and ends in mystery.

however, your meaning and approach is, 'because i have infinite creator within me, i am infinity'. which becomes wrong, because there are other entities than you in the infinity, manifesting as separate entities. since you dont contain the bird flying outside your window within you at this moment, it means that you do not contain the infinity outside you, illusory, or not.

You do contain the bird, and the bird does contain you. That's the point. The illusion is that you're two separate entities.

else, the bird outside would be able to contain infinity inside in and out, and there would be no point to anything existing but that bird. that can be repeated for any separately manifesting entity.

The bird does contain infinity. The point is to explore many-ness.

therefore, infinity couldnt explore anything, because, it is already the thing to be explored, the explorer, and the state of exploredness before that exploration can even happen.

Not necessarily. Infinite means endless, it doesn't mean immutable. Infinity doesn't know what it will do when it meets itself, which is why it is free to explore in an infinite present.

this is why it cannot explore anything.

Don't you think it's ironic that one the one hand you insist that you are finite with, presumably, a finite mind, and on the other hand you claim to know exactly what infinity is and what it can and can't do?

Infinity is all that exists. Logically, it has to be. This means that in reality there is only one thing: infinity/unity. The paradox at the heart of Ra's teaching is that each seemingly separate entity actually contains the entirety of that infinity/unity. That means that when you and I discuss, it's actually the Creator discussing with Itself.

'existence' is even itself a concept within infinity. you are still fixed on conceptualizing and analyzing existing things, apparently.

Are you disagreeing that infinity is all that there is?

the concept which we know as existence, is one of the infinite number of concepts within infinity. infinity means that, there are other concepts than 'existing', in regard to the existing entity, would be present in infinity.

You missed the point, which is "the paradox at the heart of Ra's teaching is that each seemingly separate entity actually contains the entirety of that infinity/unity."

what you call as 'creator', even itself, is an entity/concept within the infinity. the reason it is able to experience, explore, is this. it is because it isnt infinite, by being intelligent, differentiated from infinity.

Are you saying that the infinite Creator is not infinite? That just seems silly. Intelligent Infinity is not a subset of infinity. Infinity became aware. It is now intelligent.

The point that you're missing is that they say "there is no end to your selves." No end = infinite.

that is a hollow justification and a narrow analysis.

being no end to oneself in regard to time and space does not mean the entity is infinity in its entirety.

There was no mention of time and space in what I wrote. No end to yourselves, period.

had it been otherwise, we wouldnt go through octaves, change, manifest, and become limited even if 'illusorily'. yet we are. that means, even if our existence, and probably inner world and future outer world and manifestation is infinite, (and it is), we are still not infinity itself, not in any given time/space, even in 100 octaves later.

Actually, we are infinity itself, right now, and yet we do go through octaves, etc.

an infinite amount of illusion means infinity spent in illusion. it makes what you call illusion, a part of manifestation towards infinite time. it means, at an infinite time into the future, you will still be experiencing something what you choose to dub as 'illusion'. yet, even if you dub it illusion or not, it is going to be a part of your existence towards eternity.

Time is also an illusion. In truth, there is only infinity and there is only the present.

opening a door to something does not make the entrant the thing door opens to. it may lead to an understanding, realization of the thing, or, it may lead to a unification with that thing, acting as one, yet, it does not make either the door or the entrant the thing the door opened to.

The reason you can open that door is that the infinity is within.

faith, trust, and acting in perfect harmony and conjunction as co creator with infinite intelligence, does not make one infinite intelligence. it makes the entity one, harmonious, synchronous with it.

You already are infinite intelligence. Faith allows you to access your true nature.

Ra has made extravagant promises. It seems like you don't quite dare to trust those promises, and you are clinging to your logic to convince you that what Ra promised isn't really possible. Like all logic, though, yours is dependent on the accuracy of the initial assumptions. In this case, you go awry by neglecting the points that 1) you are infinity and 2) the universe is holographic.

What is illusion? Can illusion be defined?

In the context of Ra's teachings, it's anything that is not "the one undifferentiated intelligent infinity, unpolarized, full and whole." In particular, it's anything that's part of the various systems of "illusory natural laws," ie stars, planets, plants, animals, etc. Anything that seems to be other than the One.

Forgive me if I sound confused or coy, but are we speaking "Unity100 Philosophy" or "The LOO and Ra Teachings?" "The Law of One blinks neither at the light nor the darkness," not " the laws of balance blink to neither side." Unity, I am not being pedantic when I suggest that these misquotes and misunderstandings are no small points on your part. They distort the LOO teachings if left unchecked as much as derail the conversations. If we wish to challenge the Ra Material or question it, perhaps we may do so more openly on a separate thread rather than mixing terms and confusing dialogues as though they were Ra statements. This method would be far more elegant, open, and on the table, so to speak, given that you openly and honestly state, for which I commend you (see below):

i have no problems in disagreeing with Ra.

Thank you for this, Quantum. I agree.

[Aaron]

Are you saying that the infinite Creator is not infinite? That just seems silly. Intelligent Infinity is not a subset of infinity. Infinity became aware. It is now intelligent.

Hi, βαθμιαίος! How am I supposed to read that, anyways? In my head, it sounds like "Bayouiaoc", but I know that's not right... lol!

I've been following the discussion over the last couple of days, and haven't been able to share anything until now. I usually don't focus on this kind of stuff that has to do with intellectualizing the spirit anyways.

I don't know for sure if you're saying that now that we have Intelligent Infinity, so to speak, that Inifnity is no longer "unintelligent", being superseded by Intelligent Infinity. But you seem to at least say that Infinity is now Intelligent Infinity.

To me, this doesn't make sense. I think Intelligent Infinity, being the intelligent creating principle behind every speck and fathom of creation, inner and outer, is not limited to an existence separate from Infinity, or to an existence at all! We have at least three concepts here, Infinity (or Tao), Intelligent Infinity (or Creator), and Creation (or Universe). As best as I can try to understand them with this tiny little speck of a human mind, we have a sort of proceeding of concepts with no certain way to apply position in space or the passage of time to them. For convenience of understanding, we can say that first there was Infinity, which then became aware and started to create. But it always was and always will be Infinity.

You are, for convenience of understanding, a human being. When you're sitting in meditation, you're a human being with no action, no distortion, complete awareness. (supposedly lol) When you get up and become active, you are still, at base, a human being. But now there is a new level, a new active principle to you. This is how I see Intelligent Infinity. It's the motion and creation of Infinity, independent from, but not replacing, the state of Infinity being Infinite. One more step down, the Creation or Universe is what the motion brings into being.

[βαθμιαίος]

Hi, βαθμιαίος! How am I supposed to read that, anyways? In my head, it sounds like "Bayouiaoc", but I know that's not right... lol!

Hi Aaron! I pronounce it "Bath-mee-eye-os" but I have to admit I don't really know how it's supposed to be pronounced. I do know that the "θ" is "th" and the μ is "m".

To me, this doesn't make sense. I think Intelligent Infinity, being the intelligent creating principle behind every speck and fathom of creation, inner and outer, is not limited to an existence separate from Infinity, or to an existence at all!

If I understand what you're saying here, it's the same thing I'm trying to say, which is that intelligent infinity is not separate from infinity. It is infinity.

This is how I see Intelligent Infinity. It's the motion and creation of Infinity, independent from, but not replacing, the state of Infinity being Infinite. One more step down, the Creation or Universe is what the motion brings into being.

If I understand you here, I think what you're ascribing to intelligent infinity is actually what Ra ascribes to the Logos, or intelligent energy. Here is how Ra defined intelligent infinity:

27.5 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 of kinetic focus of the potential of unity or that which is all.

In response to Don's follow-up question, they then said

27.7 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 terms in the sense of the vast potential tapped into by foci or focuses of energy, we call intelligent energy.

So you can see that they use intelligent infinity to refer both to the undistorted unity (ie infinity) and to the potential of that unity. The kinetic side of that unity, they call intelligent energy.

[Aaron]

Hi Aaron! I pronounce it "Bath-mee-eye-os" but I have to admit I don't really know how it's supposed to be pronounced. I do know that the "θ" is "th" and the μ is "m".

Curious... Why did you choose it if you don't know the details of it?

So you can see that they use intelligent infinity to refer both to the undistorted unity (ie infinity) and to the potential of that unity. The kinetic side of that unity, they call intelligent energy.

It seems to me as though they say the same thing I'm trying to express. They just have a more advantageous perspective on it! Haha... So their interpretation is more complete, goes deeper. To Ra, Intelligent Infinity contains all states of potential and of action. Perhaps, as Infinity "flows" into Intelligent Infinity (visualizing a spectrum), the more Intelligent it becomes, the more it acts.

[βαθμιαίος]

Curious... Why did you choose it if you don't know the details of it?

If you click on my user name you can read all the gory details.

It seems to me as though they say the same thing I'm trying to express. They just have a more advantageous perspective on it! Haha... So their interpretation is more complete, goes deeper. To Ra, Intelligent Infinity contains all states of potential and of action. Perhaps, as Infinity "flows" into Intelligent Infinity (visualizing a spectrum), the more Intelligent it becomes, the more it acts.

I don't see Ra distinguishing infinity from intelligent infinity, which is what I thought you were doing. In their terms, intelligent infinity is the unity, the tao.

[Monica]

The basic teaching also includes the concepts that you are infinity and that the universe is holographic.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I recall is Ra saying we are infinite, not that we are infinity.

It seems to me that the seeming disagreement is based on a confusion of these 2 terms. The arguments put forth seem to be in favor of us being infinite beings, and containing infinity, which I agree with. However, in my opinion, that doesn't mean we are infinity. The reason I see it this way is that, in my understanding, the very definition of infinity is without distortion.

Time is also an illusion. In truth, there is only infinity and there is only the present.

Questions:

1. Does Infinity have distortion?
2. Do we have distortion?
3. What is illusion?

---

I don't see Ra distinguishing infinity from intelligent infinity, which is what I thought you were doing. In their terms, intelligent infinity is the unity, the tao.

Ra sometimes uses the term infinity, and others times the term intelligent infinity. Thus, there is a distinction.

[Aaron]

If you click on my user name you can read all the gory details.

Interesting!

I don't see Ra distinguishing infinity from intelligent infinity, which is what I thought you were doing. In their terms, intelligent infinity is the unity, the tao.

I was just offering my viewpoint on the whole Infinity becoming intelligent deal. From my viewpoint, there is a distinction between Infinity and Intelligent Infinity.

Ra says in the above quote: "There is unity. This unity is all that there is." They then go on to describe the unity to be what we can comprehend as Intelligent Infinity. I don't want to make the folly of putting words into Ra's mouth, but if the unity (Intelligent Infinity) is all there is (or all that exists, because "is" implies existence), then there must be a distinction in Ra's mind between Infinity and Intelligent Infinity, because Infinity goes beyond the states of existing and not existing.

[βαθμιαίος]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I recall is Ra saying we are infinite, not that we are infinity.

1.5 You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

It seems to me that the seeming disagreement is based on a confusion of these 2 terms. The arguments put forth seem to be in favor of us being infinite beings, and containing infinity, which I agree with. However, in my opinion, that doesn't mean we are infinity. The reason I see it this way is that, in my understanding, the very definition of infinity is without distortion.

1. Does Infinity have distortion?
2. Do we have distortion?
3. What is illusion?

The paradox at the heart of the Ra material, as I understand it, is that we are the one infinity, whole and undistorted, but have chosen to adopt the finite viewpoint of seemingly separate entities. The illusion is that we are separate and finite. Distortion is any movement away from undistorted unity.

Ra sometimes uses the term infinity, and others times the term intelligent infinity. Thus, there is a distinction.

You may be right, but I can't think of any examples. Please give one or two that support the idea that Ra distinguishes between infinity and intelligent infinity.

Ra says in the above quote: "There is unity. This unity is all that there is." They then go on to describe the unity to be what we can comprehend as Intelligent Infinity. I don't want to make the folly of putting words into Ra's mouth, but if the unity (Intelligent Infinity) is all there is (or all that exists, because "is" implies existence), then there must be a distinction in Ra's mind between Infinity and Intelligent Infinity, because Infinity goes beyond the states of existing and not existing.

Can you give any other evidence from the Law of One material supporting this belief? I don't find it convincing to read the statement that unity is all that there is to say that therefore Ra is suggesting that there is something beyond unity.

[Monica]

1.5 You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

Please give one or two that support the idea that Ra distinguishes between infinity and intelligent infinity.

OK thanks for the quote. So Ra said we are infinity. I stand corrected. However, I don't think that negates my point that we are still distortions. My interpretation of "You are infinite" is that infinity is contained in us. How else could we be all of unity (undistorted) and yet distorted?

Here is the one I was thinking of:

13.5 Questioner: Thank you. Can you tell me of the 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 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 came next?

Ra: I am 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.

This shows the distinction between infinity and intelligent infinity. The latter is the focusing of the former.

So, what do we know from this? We know we are infinity.

We know that infinity is unity.

Anything less than total unity is distortion.

Do we have distortion? Clearly we do. We are distortions. Thus, are we total unity? It is being argued that we are, but just think we aren't, due to the illusion that we aren't. But no one has answered my question: What is illusion?

Is illusion not distortion itself? And yet, also included in infinity? If infinity is unity of all, then infinity must include illusion. Therefore, it doesn't seem accurate to say that infinity is all there is, and anything less than that is 'just illusion' as though illusion were somehow outside of infinity, as though they were competing.

It seems to me that the seeming disagreement is based on a confusion of these 2 terms. The arguments put forth seem to be in favor of us being infinite beings, and containing infinity, which I agree with. However, in my opinion, that doesn't mean we are infinity. The reason I see it this way is that, in my understanding, the very definition of infinity is without distortion.

1. Does Infinity have distortion?
2. Do we have distortion?
3. What is illusion?

The paradox at the heart of the Ra material, as I understand it, is that we are the one infinity, whole and undistorted, but have chosen to adopt the finite viewpoint of seemingly separate entities. The illusion is that we are separate and finite.

But we're not undistorted. We're distorted. If we have "chosen to adopt the finite viewpoint of seemingly separate entities" then that means we're distorted. That's what distortion is! It's any viewpoint other than that of the whole!

So, I contend that we cannot simultaneously be undistorted and "adopt the finite viewpoint" ...HOWEVER we CAN simultaneously be infinite and distorted.

We know this, because Ra stated that "solar systems, galaxies and planets" are both distorted and yet infinite. Thus, it stands to reason that if celestial bodies can be both distorted and yet infinity, so can we!

13.9 Questioner: Then can you tell me how the galaxy and planetary systems were formed?

Ra: I am Ra. You must imagine a great leap of thought in this query, for at the last query the physical, as you call, it, universes were not yet born.

The energies moved in increasingly intelligent patterns until the individualization of various energies emanating from the creative principle of intelligent infinity became such as to be co-Creators. Thus the so-called physical matter began. The concept of light is instrumental in grasping this great leap of thought as this vibrational distortion of infinity is the building block of that which is known as matter, the light being intelligent and full of energy, thus being the first distortion of intelligent infinity which was called by the creative principle.

This light of love was made to have in its occurrences of being certain characteristics, among them the infinite whole paradoxically described by the straight line, as you would call it. This paradox is responsible for the shape of the various physical illusion entities you call solar systems, galaxies, and planets of revolving and tending towards the lenticular.

Would anyone like to tackle the above paragraph about the infinite whole described by a straight line??

13.11 Questioner: Taking the question just before the one I asked about the galaxies and planets and tell me what the next step was from there?

Ra: I am Ra. The steps, as you call them, are, at the point of question, simultaneous and infinite.

13.13 Questioner: Was the galaxy that we are in created by the infinite intelligence or was it created by a portion of the infinite intelligence?

Ra: I am Ra. The galaxy and all other things of material of which you are aware are products of individualized portions of intelligent infinity. As each exploration began, it, in turn, found its focus and became co-Creator. Using intelligent infinity each portion created an universe and allowing the rhythms of free choice to flow, playing with the infinite spectrum of possibilities, each individualized portion channeled the love/light into what you might call intelligent energy, thus creating the so-called Natural Laws of any particular universe.

Each universe, in turn, individualized to a focus becoming, in turn, co-Creator and allowing further diversity, thus creating further intelligent energies regularizing or causing Natural Laws to appear in the vibrational patterns of what you would call a solar system. Thus, each solar system has its own, shall we say, local coordinate system of illusory Natural Laws. It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity. Thus all begins and ends in mystery.

Note that we contain infinity...we contain the One Infinite Creator. And yet, we are distorted. We are holographic pieces of the whole, containing a pattern of the whole, but we are not the whole.

[Aaron]

Can you give any other evidence from the Law of One material supporting this belief? I don't find it convincing to read the statement that unity is all that there is to say that therefore Ra is suggesting that there is something beyond unity.

I think so.

3.7 Questioner: After this, what came next?

Ra: I am 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.

Here, they specifically mention Infinity being focused into a concept, Infinite Energy. Then, they go on to say that the Creator, or Intelligent Infinity, is also a focusing of Infinity into another concept. This is how I interpret it.