Creator

[Focus123]

ORIGINALLY THERE WAS INFINITY; INFINITY= THE ONE CREATOR OR THE ONE INFINITE CREATOR (GOD) “Before” there was any space or time or beings of any sort, before there was love or anything to be loved,there was something.The only thing that can be said about It is that It was, and is, infinite; It was the One
Infinite Creator- or just the One Creator- but It was without awareness.Although, It had not yet created anything, It has the ability to do so and is appropriately referred to as the Creator.It is what we call“God;” It is the divine Father, or the divine Mother, of all that is.Of course, time, as we know it, did not
exist then, so the word“before” is a metaphor in the context in which it is being used.

Question: How do we know that the Creator was not aware- who says?

[Ali Quadir]

At the very least in my opinion because at that point there was nothing for it to be aware of..

[Focus123]

How about aware of itself?

[Ali Quadir]

That would require separation of that self into subject and object... And that happened the next step, that is when the creator became aware. So it was potentially aware, but not yet at that initial point.

[litllady]

In the state of perfection....the creator is impersonal to itself.

Through expression of itself...it then becomes personal (aware).

Even though the creator is always in a state of perfection....there are times its also in a state of 'renewing' and I think that is what we see in the Universe. A giant place of sifting through expressions.

That may make no sense but is what I think (though how do we really know such things, we can only try to barely understand such things).

I think its fine to say "I dont know" if the creator is aware of itself or if it always was or is ect.

I do know through myself, I find the creator in others. To me, this in a way is the creator....'be-coming' aware of itself. Maybe the awareness part only comes through 'being in expressions and while in those expressions it sees itself'.

[Experience You]

No one knowns ..... that is why we call it Tao/void/One because it is unknowable "nothing" / unaware...

I sure don't know ;D

That is the thing with our minds... we want so much the objective truth.. only to find that reaching it means the end of subjective and a void...

But this is also the beauty of existing... it is all beliefs... Identities... IT begins and ends in mystery...

That is all i know right now... That there is no Real besides the fact that there is no Real...

So enjoy your journey... And trust in well being if you will...

Love, think, smile, desire, help, enjoy, let this unfold ... in your will...

Who knowns what will happen ? But you can trust unto Yourself....

[unity100]

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...c=1&ss=1#6

i dont think the concept 'one' or 'void' can apply in the case of infinity. because, both are just concepts, that are found in infinity.

[Experience You]

By your logic we shouldn't use the word infinity either. The void is the void. The one is the One. The infinity is infinity.

There is nothing to say about what you can't grasp.

in the end these are just words we are using, If you are having any experience you are in a subjective state.

In another words you/thoughts are the subjective experience.

Yet there is only One.

Words are just words you can put any meaning into them.

[unity100]

indeed, there is nothing to say about what we cant grasp. we are just using infinity as a pointer to whatever is one level above infinite intelligence.

for a concept of 'one' to be meaningful, there has to exist the concept of 'many'. for the concept of 'many' to be possible, there has to exist the concept of 'one'. therefore, these two, are dualities of each other. one is only possible with the other. at the point where there is many, there is also one. at the point where there is no 'many', then there cant be also a 'one'.

[Experience You]

Yes, i have thought of this before in regarding ONE, what meaning has the word "one" when that is all there is, nothing to compare to, no contrast, no relationship, complete stillness, no awareness, nothing....

Yet "ONE" has meaning in contrast to ALL, we are only having experiences as the All anyway... All is the experience..

Edit: The other day i was thinking how absurd reality is if you come from the standpoint to find a rock hard True reality, when you are "swimming" in it, you can't leave that because that is all there is.

So it never was about finding the True Truth but about the infinite experiences (distortions) you could have with the Truth...

Edit1: Another analogy is the Ouroboros http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
This is a quote from /et\AI
"The ouroboros serpent doesn't see it's full self- it's head and body- it only sees it's own tail- and can only know itself through the logic and expression of it's tail- which is why abstracted symbols is all we can ever have- Maya- in order to see itself fully the cosmos would have to go outside itself which is a paradox- so it must abstractly pretend to be able to see itself from the outside by representing what it sees inside"

Again this is all analogies and extrapolations...

[unity100]

Yes, i have thought of this before in regarding ONE, what meaning has the word "one" when that is all there is,

in the case of infinity, there would also be the 'nothingness that there is nothing'

nothing to compare to, no contrast, no relationship, complete stillness, no awareness, nothing....

stillness sounds the closest to it to me. however, even stillness has to has its antithesis, and be found in combination with it. then at that state, there is both stillness and its opposite.

[litllady]

Why cant oneness....be 'everything'?

I dont believe in nothingness in any way.

To me, oneness=all.

How can there every be nothingness?

[unity100]

the concept of nothingness, is a mystery to me.

yet,

there is oneness, unity, in which we can see as the infinite intelligence.

but,

there is something that enables the uniform, unified infinite intelligence, to individualize from its self, and manifest as multiples. (more than one).

there is one. but there is also something enables that one, to be many.

then in return, the opposite must be true for whatever is doing that enabling. it is probably in some 'manyness' state that goes far beyond 'infinitely many', and 'the one' enables that to be able to exist as infinitely many.

probably, two sides of a spectrum.

[litllady]

the concept of nothingness, is a mystery to me.

yet,

there is oneness, unity, in which we can see as the infinite intelligence.

but,

there is something that enables the uniform, unified infinite intelligence, to individualize from its self, and manifest as multiples. (more than one).

there is one. but there is also something enables that one, to be many.

then in return, the opposite must be true for whatever is doing that enabling. it is probably in some 'manyness' state that goes far beyond 'infinitely many', and 'the one' enables that to be able to exist as infinitely many.

probably, two sides of a spectrum.

Hello Unity...its great talking with you and sharing back and forth.

I think (limited perspective) that the 'one' as always 'being' is always expressing.

Look at us as beings....we are also, always expressing ourselves. As we express....a many comes from us through creations, actions, ect....but all of those manys that we caused or created or were a part of ....contain us in some way. So as our creations seem separate from us, they really are not.

I guess what I am saying is that the 'cause' or enabler of the 'one becoming many' could be a impersonal nature process of 'expressing'. This expressing of self creates many things that 'seem' separate from the creator or outside of the creator even...but the creator is within all of those creations and is of those creations. It could be that through expressing, as being, is a process of renewing 'self'.

Think of all the phases of our lives. We go through childhood, adolescence, ect....each of those phases of our 'be-ing' contained different expressions of us that represented our 'phase of being'. Imagine taking some of those expressions away out of our lives. Did we not need all of those expressions of ourselves to form and make us what we are each today? Even the little expressions of ourselves, such as letting someone know they made us happy with a hug of thanks or petting our pets throughout our lives....expressing ourselves is a huge part of our being and I think we are made in this image. I think the Spirit of life expresses itself and needs each little expression from the seeds to the flowers to the birds to the rocks to the stars to mold and form its renewing of self.

Is there really a 'nothingness'? Ever? Even in stillness...it still is something.

Is there such things as voids? Isnt energy everywhere? Compressed or not compressed...there is still energy. All energy reacts and responds to other forms or none forms of other energy....but its all a one energy really, reacting to itself.

Sorry, Ive been away and have a lot on my mind and am aware my posts are somewhat rambles.

---

And just cause we see things as a many....could it be that its not really a many at all...but still a one. Maybe its just from our limited perspective that there is a many. Isnt that the illusion here?

[unity100]

I guess what I am saying is that the 'cause' or enabler of the 'one becoming many' could be a impersonal nature process of 'expressing'.

the catch is, even concepts like 'expression', came after the discovery of finites.

[Poffo]

On Infinity and Nothingness:

Infinity is One, even if "composed" of an infinite amount of finites --> the whole (the One) is necessarily greater than the sum of its parts (finites).

If nothingness is the complete absence of things (aka finites), then what is absolute thingness? It is unity, oneness, infinity.

If we consider the stillness mentioned in earlier posts, this can be equated with the fulcrum of a lever, as say a see-saw or teeter-totter. The fulcrum never moves but provides the means by which energy is conveyed by the motion of the the plank. Nothingness and stillness equate because stillness is the absence of motion/vibrations, and in this sense nothingness is a lack of motion. The finiteness of the universe IS its motions for if there weren't any motions then nothing would actually be, let alone be sensed, interpreted, and acted upon by entities; all senses require some form of motion to be activated, and light itself as that which helps us see the world, results from the motion (quantum jump) of an electron from a higher to a lower atomic orbital.

So, if an entity is experiencing/existing at the highest level/note of 7th density, they are unified with all of Creation, and this state naturally precedes the move into the so-called 8th density which begins a new octave. At this level of "foreverness" time and space no longer hold sway because there isn't a multiplicity of objects requiring time and space to manifest within/through. When Ra says that Infinity "became aware" and this was Intelligent Infinity, I believe they are making reference to a waking up from a sort of eternal sleep of foreverness which comes after the full realization of experience that the octave has to provide, at the highest point of 7th density. Herein lies the key point I want to express:

If one not only realizes but experiences that it is ALL things, and this is the essence of 7th density from which all stems, then it is indeed One. But, in order for any thing to exist, it must stand in relation to at least one other thing, let alone the infinitude of things in Creation. This means that nothingness is the natural "state" of Infinity, because it is ALL things; it can't be a thing because it is all things. So this state of true oneness at the height of 7th density means that the entity (as all entities) actually loses "consciousness" of itself, because it no longer exists in relation to any other part of itself as they have all been unified. In this sense, All and Nothing, seeming polar opposites, are actually two sides of the same coin, the bias towards each depending on how one chooses to view it.

It is in the waking up, where Infinity becomes "aware" or intelligent, that finiteness can begin once again as a new octave. Intelligent Infinity is the means by which the absolute unity of Infinity differentiates itself from itself in the illusion of energetic relationships AKA polarity, this being Intelligent Energy. We know from physics that energy is the ability to do work (force x distance), so we can extrapolate this to the macro Creation and see that the Creator (Intelligent Infinity) must make use of polarity (Intelligent Energy) to manifest a set of finite relationships that may eventually know their true nature (unity) once again. I realize that this may seemingly contradict what Ra says about II being the potential used by the kinetic IE, but once again it's just a matter of from which side is one viewing it, and this is the nature of polar relationships. Just as the teacher learns and the learner teaches, or using a biological example, the father actively puts forth the sperm which is then turned around at the end of the pregnancy when the mother actively puts forth the child into the world.

Ok, starting to get ahead of myself, so I'll leave it there. Hopefully that made some sense and I didn't contradict myself too much, hehe. That's something which is hard to avoid when talking about the inherently paradoxical (from our POV) nature of the relationship between infinity and finiteness.

/:idea:

[unity100]

another catch :

'sum of its parts', 'whole', 'not whole' have to be also mere concepts under the subset of infinity.

i doubt that, entities go back to infinity at the end of octaves. i think they just return to infinite intelligence.

what i see from Ra's text, is intelligent infinity and intelligent energy are same and equivalent.

[Poffo]

Sorry if the quotes that I keep putting around words are annoying, but I use them to show that when discussing infinity all labels we give it are based on our finite understandings and are thus inadequate. If someone was talking to me in person and doing air-quotes around every other word I'd probably want to slap them, lol.

another catch :

'sum of its parts', 'whole', 'not whole' have to be also mere concepts under the subset of infinity.

I agree that those are concepts -> definitions -> finite, but I don't think that means they aren't applicable. The whole is infinity, and the not-whole is finiteness. My body is composed of virtually innumberable parts, but the conglomeration of them all as a whole is one body, and this is a primal paradox of the relationship of the many to the One.

IMhO, if there is any single truth it is that infinity is undefinable. That said, to speak of something you must at least have a concept, as incorrect as it may be since concepts are finite. As Ra said, "That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning." From my POV, the only time the One doesn't "exist" as its finite parts is when it returns to its state of unity and therefore has no relationship to any other things as the concept of "other" dissolves.

i doubt that, entities go back to infinity at the end of octaves. i think they just return to infinite intelligence.

If entities only return to Intelligent Infinity, then where is the transition point between one octave and the next? My point is that there isn't one because such a transition would require the finite concepts of time and space. I believe, and I could be totally wrong, that the point "between" the highest level of 7th density and 8th/1st of the next octave is where Infinity "resides". In that sense you are right in that there can't be any entities in a state of infinite nothingness.

what i see from Ra's text, is intelligent infinity and intelligent energy are same and equivalent.

I know, based on your posts on this forum thus far, that you've studied the Law of One material in great detail, so I'm wondering why you would say that they are same and equivalent. One is embedded in the other, but I don't think that makes them same and equivalent, even though they both have the same source (infinity). A rough anology might be the baby in the womb. It is its mother in that it's attached and fully dependant on her, but it is also a separate being.


/:idea:

[unity100]

I agree that those are concepts -> definitions -> finite, but I don't think that means they aren't applicable. The whole is infinity, and the not-whole is finiteness. My body is composed of virtually innumberable parts, but the conglomeration of them all as a whole is one body, and this is a primal paradox of the relationship of the many to the One.

however even the concept of 'applicability' is something within infinity subset. so i think :

IMhO, if there is any single truth it is that infinity is undefinable.

that is the one surefire thing.

If entities only return to Intelligent Infinity, then where is the transition point between one octave and the next? My point is that there isn't one because such a transition would require the finite concepts of time and space.

an octave, a manifestation of the central sun that exists in a creation, i see, as a focus that manifests from infinite intelligence. the sea of infinite intelligence, finds a focus point, and there manifests a central sun.

when all again merge at the sun, and octave ends, all return to the sea again.

as far as i see, sea contains aspects of space, and time in itself. the distribution of these, their focusing, probably is the thing creating creations. ie - a form of separation.

I believe, and I could be totally wrong, that the point "between" the highest level of 7th density and 8th/1st of the next octave is where Infinity "resides". In that sense you are right in that there can't be any entities in a state of infinite nothingness.

i dont think so. for, in between infinity and any kind of octave/density, there resides infinite intelligence.

we are given no information or pointer to infinite intelligence returning to infinity. we are told that, all coalesce in the one central sun again, and then after a timeless state (perfectly balanced infinitely chaotic/orderly zen sea of infinite intelligence), another creation begins when a new focus is found.

I know, based on your posts on this forum thus far, that you've studied the Law of One material in great detail, so I'm wondering why you would say that they are same and equivalent. One is embedded in the other, but I don't think that makes them same and equivalent, even though they both have the same source (infinity). A rough anology might be the baby in the womb. It is its mother in that it's attached and fully dependant on her, but it is also a separate being.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...c=1&ss=1#7

here

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.