Is the afterlife timeless?

[AnthroHeart]

Are we without time in time/space?

Could we rest there a "billion years" between incarnation?

Could we access higher planes there where all our "dreams come true"?

I know eventually that would get boring.

My desires are pretty specialized.

I want to experience for Creator what few others would want to experience.

Is that a noble goal, to experience it for Creator?

[Minyatur]

Are we without time in time/space?

No

Could we rest there a "billion years" between incarnation?

Yes

Could we access higher planes there where all our "dreams come true"?

You can perceive your current experience as already being the realization of your dreams.

Edit: pre-incarnational dreams and of a higher level as part of your free will.

I know eventually that would get boring.

Infinitely does and doesn't.

My desires are pretty specialized.

All desires are.

I want to experience for Creator what few others would want to experience.

That is the purpose of many-ness and humanity is no standard.

Is that a noble goal, to experience it for Creator?

It is.

[AnthroHeart]

Even a star is not special.

[Minyatur]

Even a star is not special.

You can either see it as infinitely special or infinitely not special. It is a matter of pespective.

[AnthroHeart]

Thank you Minyatur for all that Jazz.

[ada]

Even a star is not special.

Will you give me a description of the sun, of our sun?
Ra: I am Ra. This is a query which is not easily answered in your language, for the sun has various aspects in relation to intelligent infinity, to intelligent energy, and to each density of each planet, as you call these spheres. Moreover, these differences extend into the metaphysical or time/space part of your creation.

In relationship to intelligent infinity, the sun body is, equally with all parts of the infinite creation, part of that infinity.

In relation to the potentiated intelligent infinity which makes use of intelligent energy, it is the offspring, shall we say, of the Logos for a much larger number of sub-Logoi. The relationship is hierarchical in that the sub-Logos uses the intelligent energy in ways set forth by the Logos and uses its free will to co-create the, shall we say, full nuances of your densities as you experience them.

In relationship to the densities, the sun body may physically, as you would say, be seen to be a large body of gaseous elements undergoing the processes of fusion and radiating heat and light.

Metaphysically, the sun achieves a meaning to fourth through seventh density according to the growing abilities of entities in these densities to grasp the living creation and co-entity, or other-self, nature of this sun body. Thus by the sixth density the sun may be visited and inhabited by those dwelling in time/space and may even be partially created from moment to moment by the processes of sixth-density entities in their evolution.

I beg to differ.
It's pretty much everything that you experience right now.

[anagogy]

Are we without time in time/space?

More precisely, like the exact opposite. As you transition into pure time/space "time" becomes infinite, and space (which is also the realm of mass) ceases (and the opposite occurs when you incarnate). But again, keep in mind the power in the word "pure". For example, right now we are in space/time but we are not 100% purely focused into space/time, else we would experience infinite space and zero time. It could be said this approximates a description of 1st density.

But practically speaking, as you intended the question, yes.

Could we rest there a "billion years" between incarnation?

Sure. But you won't need or even want that long of "subjective time" to undo the damage of one traumatic incarnation.

Could we access higher planes there where all our "dreams come true"?

I know eventually that would get boring.

My desires are pretty specialized.

You do it every night when you sleep, you just don't retain full memory of it. It would probably distract you from your incarnation. Sort of like if you were in 1st grade and could simultaneously play play-station while the teacher was trying to teach. Sure, it might be fun, but such a child isn't going to learn what they are there to learn in such a scenario.

I think this is why astral projection is often discouraged by our guides. Again, it is a distraction from the incarnation.

I want to experience for Creator what few others would want to experience.

Is that a noble goal, to experience it for Creator?

The creator doesn't need or want anything from us. It is the ultimate selfless being. Its center is everywhere, and its circumference is nowhere, and it contains all conceivable realities. It is complete in every sense of the word. What we perceive as the creator knowing itself is simply a lower energy shell of infinite consciousness. In a sense its not even "really happening". But it feels real enough to us. When we transcend it, we won't see it as having been real either.

Only beings en-mired within the illusion of separation have goals, desires, needs, and aspirations. The oneness doesn't recognize any of the illusions of separation as real. Your entire soul journey of evolution through the densities is merely the eternal knowingness present in intelligent infinity of what that contouring of creative light would "be like". It knows what everything would "be like" so purely and in such exquisite detail that it makes all probabilities real with its incomprehensibly infinite imagination. And these thoughtforms (us) actually think they have independent and separate existence.

That's really the cosmic punch line of it all. We're not separate, but think we are.   

[Minyatur]

Are we without time in time/space?

More precisely, like the exact opposite. As you transition into pure time/space "time" becomes infinite, and space (which is also the realm of mass) ceases (and the opposite occurs when you incarnate). But again, keep in mind the power in the word "pure". For example, right now we are in space/time but we are not 100% purely focused into space/time, else we would experience infinite space and zero time. It could be said this approximates a description of 1st density.

But practically speaking, as you intended the question, yes.

To go back on my answer that was no. If IGW speaks of time/space out of interest for higher densities which Ra speaks of, then the answer can only be no as I see things. A yes would make impossible any form of evolution across densities as evolution requires a notion of change from where it is experienced.

On the pure time/space, it seems paradoxal to take out one of the portion that makes time/space what it is. It seems time can only exist within the concept of space within the duality they represent. Both extremities coaslesce into what is neither of them to reach back to the Source (or emerge from it from there) which is why Ra calls it moving toward timelessness, because you expand on the time extremity until you break free from it.

[AnthroHeart]

I wasn't talking about higher densities. I meant 3D time/space.

[anagogy]

To go back on my answer that was no. If IGW speaks of time/space out of interest for higher densities which Ra speaks of, then the answer can only be no as I see things. A yes would make impossible any form of evolution across densities as evolution requires a notion of change from where it is experienced.

From a certain vantage point, I agree with you, and from another perspective I see it differently. It really all just depends on which orbit you are looking at the infinity that is. The universe, and everything in it, looks very different with each increasingly broader perspective, which makes it difficult to say any perspective is completely wrong, because there is inevitably somewhere where that perspective applies. Basically, the the core of our spirits and beingness is timeless and thus, changeless.  A changeless center is required to "measure" or "register" change. It is the still backdrop which acts as the universal frame of reference for all change. In other-words: pure consciousness. It is sort of analogous to watching the clouds move against a large mountain. Without the stabile unmoving frame of reference of the mountain, the movement of the clouds is undiscernible. Similarly, the illusion of change that takes place in the realm of cognition, or *mind*, would be impossible without the unmoving, changeless, and fundamentally timeless still center point of spirit.

From the absolute broadest level of beingness, there is no change occurring from my perspective. Nothing is actually evolving. What we have mistakenly confused as evolution, change, form, and separation is actually just an illusory identification with lower order thoughtforms eternally present in intelligent infinity. But that hurts my head to think about. D:

It could be argued that my way of looking at things is not in perfect alignment with the universe described by Ra. However, I would argue it is implied by it though. My views line up probably most closely with the philosophy of advaita vedanta.

On the pure time/space, it seems paradoxal to take out one of the portion that makes time/space what it is. It seems time can only exist within the concept of space within the duality they represent. Both extremities coaslesce into what is neither of them to reach back to the Source (or emerge from it from there) which is why Ra calls it moving toward timelessness, because you expand on the time extremity until you break free from it.

From my perspective, time is more fundamental than space. I mean technically, they are both "types of space". There are quotes in the Ra material that basically state that time/space is prior to space/time, I can dredge them up if you like. They are two sides of the same coin, absolutely, but one is more real, deep, and fundamental, than the other. The continuum between time and space and space and time, identified by Ra as time/space and space/time respectively, are similar to the continuum between truth/falsity, light/dark, heat/cold. You can say they are two sides of the same coin, but in reality there is no separation between them. One is just the "resistance" to the other more fundamental and natural state. An "inversion" if you will, which requires a deliberate and focused energetic kinetic investment by the creator to maintain its manifestation -- a warping or translation of information and perception.

In the same way that when distortion/separation is gone, there is only undistortion, or truth/unity, when all is said and done, there is only time left. It is the "space" that is left over when the illusory exploration of finity is completed.

It is the limitless and supraluminal current that is natural to intelligent infinity.

But if you have a different view on it all, it's all good man. I have no problem with that. I think different perspectives make things interesting.

[Minyatur]

From a certain vantage point, I agree with you, and from another perspective I see it differently. It really all just depends on which orbit you are looking at the infinity that is. The universe, and everything in it, looks very different with each increasingly broader perspective, which makes it difficult to say any perspective is completely wrong, because there is inevitably somewhere where that perspective applies. Basically, the the core of our spirits and beingness is timeless and thus, changeless.  A changeless center is required to "measure" or "register" change. It is the still backdrop which acts as the universal frame of reference for all change. In other-words: pure consciousness. It is sort of analogous to watching the clouds move against a large mountain. Without the stabile unmoving frame of reference of the mountain, the movement of the clouds is undiscernible. Similarly, the illusion of change that takes place in the realm of cognition, or *mind*, would be impossible without the unmoving, changeless, and fundamentally timeless still center point of spirit.

I agree fully with this.

From the absolute broadest level of beingness, there is no change occurring from my perspective. Nothing is actually evolving. What we have mistakenly confused as evolution, change, form, and separation is actually just an illusory identification with lower order thoughtforms eternally present in intelligent infinity. But that hurts my head to think about. D:

The notion of change and evolution seems heavily linked with intelligence. Intelligence always is but always is because the experience of infinity always was.

I think here the point is that outside any form of illusion, beingness remains truth and that is what springs forth illusions for beingness to concretely experience, from illusionary vantage points.

I also think there is an ever present synthesis of infinity having been experienced, and that is what Ra refers to as the first distortion. Beingness is self-accepting, and if it was not then maybe there would be no infinity.

It could be argued that my way of looking at things is not in perfect alignment with the universe described by Ra. However, I would argue it is implied by it though. My views line up probably most closely with the philosophy of advaita vedanta.

Mine is but one of chaos and order, which can be seen through many scopes. Mine is mainly to perceive will and thought forms.

On the pure time/space, it seems paradoxal to take out one of the portion that makes time/space what it is. It seems time can only exist within the concept of space within the duality they represent. Both extremities coaslesce into what is neither of them to reach back to the Source (or emerge from it from there) which is why Ra calls it moving toward timelessness, because you expand on the time extremity until you break free from it.

From my perspective, time is more fundamental than space. I mean technically, they are both "types of space". There are quotes in the Ra material that basically state that time/space is prior to space/time, I can dredge them up if you like. They are two sides of the same coin, absolutely, but one is more real, deep, and fundamental, than the other. The continuum between time and space and space and time, identified by Ra as time/space and space/time respectively, are similar to the continuum between truth/falsity, light/dark, heat/cold. You can say they are two sides of the same coin, but in reality there is no separation between them. One is just the "resistance" to the other more fundamental and natural state. An "inversion" if you will, which requires a deliberate and focused energetic kinetic investment by the creator to maintain its manifestation -- a warping or translation of information and perception.

I remember we've had this disagreement on another form of duality.

I tend to think that both aspects of a duality exist only within their dualized reality and that what is dualized stands above both of it's poles. As such, the truer pole is manifest only in face of it's counterpart. Time is through space, light manifests in darkness (it's absence), etc. The counterpart is somewhat what draws the truer pole into existence/manifestation. The process of duality allows infinite loops to take place and to expand a thought into an infinite one.

So between time and space, time would be the truer paradox to solve and break free from but I am not sure there is time, as within this duality, outside of space.

In the same way that when distortion/separation is gone, there is only undistortion, or truth/unity, when all is said and done, there is only time left. It is the "space" that is left over when the illusory exploration of finity is completed.

It is the limitless and supraluminal current that is natural to intelligent infinity.

But if you have a different view on it all, it's all good man. I have no problem with that. I think different perspectives make things interesting.

Well here I'd say that time also is an illusion, although less illusionary than space.

Within the duality of void and infinity, would you deem the void to be the truer pole?

[anagogy]

Within the duality of void and infinity, would you deem the void to be the truer pole?

I would probably need a more specific understanding of how you define the two.

If by void and infinity, you mean total absence, and total presence, then from my vantage point total presence is real, and total absence is imaginary (distortion).

One is looking at the real, and the other is looking at the real through a lens, or translation, that warps the light so that it appears as something different than the real. You could still say its real, but I would call it less real. It's the difference between a broader orbit of infinity and a lower orbit of infinity. To me, distortion is a resistance to reality. It's like holding a cork underwater, it requires effort to maintain. The real requires no effort to maintain. You let go of the cork, it floats to the top.

[Minyatur]

Within the duality of void and infinity, would you deem the void to be the truer pole?

I would probably need a more specific understanding of how you define the two.

If by void and infinity, you mean total absence, and total presence, then from my vantage point total presence is real, and total absence is imaginary (distortion).

One is looking at the real, and the other is looking at the real through a lens, or translation, that warps the light so that it appears as something different than the real. You could still say its real, but I would call it less real. It's the difference between a broader orbit of infinity and a lower orbit of infinity. To me, distortion is a resistance to reality. It's like holding a cork underwater, it requires effort to maintain. The real requires no effort to maintain. You let go of the cork, it floats to the top.

Interesting about distortion and resistance. I tend to think the Creator is found within resistance and that the entire of infinity is compromised solely of distortions born from resistance of the Creator to Itself.

In fact the first distortion to me means the distortion of infinity. The first illusion, so outside of illusions the true nature of things is void but this void, like any other truer pole of duality, is made manifest through it's counterpart. So the source of resistance is beingness which stands above the paradox of nothing/everything.

In some way, infinity is creation and creation is resistance to nothing.

[anagogy]

Interesting about distortion and resistance. I tend to think the Creator is found within resistance and that the entire of infinity is compromised solely of distortions born from resistance of the Creator to Itself.

I would describe by saying that the the infinity of illusions is born from the resistance of the creator to itself, but of itself, there is only truth or unity which is the complete absence of resistance and distortion.

In fact the first distortion to me means the distortion of infinity. The first illusion, so outside of illusions the true nature of things is void but this void, like any other truer pole of duality, is made manifest through it's counterpart. So the source of resistance is beingness which stands above the paradox of nothing/everything.

In some way, infinity is creation and creation is resistance to nothing.

It looks like that is the crux of our diverging viewpoints then. You seem to see duality (in a kind of dynamic tension) as the ultimate reality. I don't see a duality to it. Just the oneness.

To me, anything other than flawless unity, is a distortion of what is beyond all illusions. I see us sort of like a snake that is looking at its tail and mistakenly thinking it is seeing another snake. And then perhaps trying to eat it in its confusion. It is always free to make this mistaken conceptualization of perception, and it is also free to wake up to the wholeness of its snakeness and feel the reality that the tail is part of itself.

[Minyatur]

I see duality as a mean to express a thought.

Oneness within void is unity but a unity of nothing whereas Oneness within distortions is infinity and a unity of that infinity. I would argue here that distortions are truth in a certain way, as they are an indissociable aspect of beingness and make beingness/oneness into something other than total void. So with your example of the snake, whether the snake sees it's tail as itself or not will simply change on what level unity is being perceived from within illusions. But within non-illusionary unity with no resistance nor distortions, there is no snake.

Everythingness is the false pole, it is the path of that which is not and englobes every sub-distortion. It is resistance to what is without illusions, it is resistance to one beingness in complete void. So love, light, time, space, etc are all illusions contained as potential of the idea of themselves within truth but remains the false pole as I see things.

[Minyatur]

Infinity is the false pole that makes Beingness complex in the same way the negative polarity makes Love complex.

[anagogy]

I see duality as a mean to express a thought.

Oneness within void is unity but a unity of nothing whereas Oneness within distortions is infinity and a unity of that infinity. I would argue here that distortions are truth in a certain way, as they are an indissociable aspect of beingness and make beingness/oneness into something other than total void. So with your example of the snake, whether the snake sees it's tail as itself or not will simply change on what level unity is being perceived from within illusions. But within non-illusionary unity with no resistance nor distortions, there is no snake.

Everythingness is the false pole, it is the path of that which is not and englobes every sub-distortion. It is resistance to what is without illusions, it is resistance to one beingness in complete void. So love, light, time, space, etc are all illusions contained as potential of the idea of themselves within truth but remains the false pole as I see things.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you are saying that "nothingness" is the "real unity" correct?

[Minyatur]

I see duality as a mean to express a thought.

Oneness within void is unity but a unity of nothing whereas Oneness within distortions is infinity and a unity of that infinity. I would argue here that distortions are truth in a certain way, as they are an indissociable aspect of beingness and make beingness/oneness into something other than total void. So with your example of the snake, whether the snake sees it's tail as itself or not will simply change on what level unity is being perceived from within illusions. But within non-illusionary unity with no resistance nor distortions, there is no snake.

Everythingness is the false pole, it is the path of that which is not and englobes every sub-distortion. It is resistance to what is without illusions, it is resistance to one beingness in complete void. So love, light, time, space, etc are all illusions contained as potential of the idea of themselves within truth but remains the false pole as I see things.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you are saying that "nothingness" is the "real unity" correct?

I think unity transcend this duality, but yeah nothingness would be the real pole of unity as it's duality is unity of illusions. It is still unity but the unity of that which is not.

But like I said, I consider illusions to be truth in their own way and to not be so much false as the experience of them is real. So beingness is dualized within nothing/everything and unity is inherent to beingness. So emptiness would then be the truthful experience of unity.

[anagogy]

I guess to me, nothingness being unity is a massive contradiction. Nothingness is nothingness (i.e. there is nothing that can arise from nothing). If you are really talking about nothingness, you are talking no consciousness, no beingness, no free will, no existence, no potential, no possibilities of any kind.

Unless you mean something else, because I just described nothingness: a hypothetical state of infinite lack or absence. If you are truly talking about nothingness, anything you might describe is not there. If that was the case, there would be no experience, no world, no beingness, no illusions even. Just complete and utter oblivion. Do you mean something else when you say nothing?

Because there can't be nothing, it doesn't make sense. At least not to me, from a logical standpoint.

[Minyatur]

Well it goes back to what I said about dualities, they are expressed through their counterpart.

So there is no total nothingness because it is in the face of everythingness. Just like there is no time of itself because it is in the face of space. The void is the truth behind the illusionary reality we experience.

I also think the experience of nothing is somehwat more eternal than infinity, whereas infinity is more like a moment of everythingness that exists in an eternal nothing. Infinite time and infinite space, but unified as one infinity.

[AnthroHeart]

There is nothing which is not.

[Minyatur]

I think I mainly mix up words poorly because my thoughts are not fully formed. Should probably wait some time.

But to reply to what you said, there is nothing which is not within illusions. But once they all are peeled off, what remains?

[ricdaw]

Are we without time in time/space?

I like the practical.  So let me re-phase this question: what is "time" like in time/space?

First, I believe that the home environment for us 3d earthlings in the Afterlife looks, well, earth-like.  As above, so below.  So there are mountains and seas and clouds and trees.  (Hey, that rhymes!) 

Second, there is also a perpetual light akin to the perfect summer's day.  It never stops.  Some identify the light as being from the "central sun" but not our solar sun.  The day/night cycle we have here on Earth is one of the big "time" differences between space/time and time/space.  It is important enough to warrant depiction on tarot card 13 (Death) as the morning (or setting) sun.  I think Ra commented on the "diurnal period" and the way that it can allow for a daily reset to help one achieve one's life goals through catalyst.  (If at first you don't succeed, try and try again.)  So our "time" here is broken into daily cycles.  Associated with those cycles is the body's need for sleep and the fact that we fatigue.

But in the Afterlife's time/space, there is no "diurnal period" and no sleep and no fatigue.  We be spirits.  How would that impact our perceptions of the passage of time?  I suspect that after we wean ourselves from our earthly habits, we will come to find that perpetual light plus perpetual alertness equals a spacious sense of NOW-ness.  No matter what you "do" you have an unlimited, unfatigueable, time to do it.  

With no day/night cycle, there are no calendars to mark the passage of time.  With no need to sleep (or eat for that matter), a regular day's worth of time will already be three times longer than we expect.  No need for 10 hours sleep in every 24 hours, no need for breakfast, lunch or dinner (and all the time it takes to prepare those meals) leaves us with an awful lot of time.  Imagine how much longer the days would be here without eating or sleeping?

We may be psychologically aware of time's passage back on Earth (for example, if we choose to keep track of the loved ones we left behind) and we might coordinate with them to celebrate major holidays, but we are essentially freed from all of time's burdens: fatigue, sleep, aging.  We have, literally unlimited time to do what we want to do in the eternal NOW. 

And, I submit, it is the very impermanence of Earth and its daily "time" that makes it so attractive to us.  Everything dies here.  It is a world of loss and boundaries and confinement.  And we, seeking to know who we really are, our Authentic Selves, so to speak, joyously jump down here into physical bodies to try and know about ourselves as we confront the physical and psychological limits of the place.  We can't do that in the Afterlife.  Spirit = no pain, no injury, no tiredness, no sleep, no limits.  (Would seem to take all the fun out of team sports, eh?  Or even solo sport activities.  If you really want to know what your physical limits are, and what it feels like to have world-class physical prowess and the intellectual determination to achieve such prowess, you must come down here to discover it for yourself!)

When you think about the logical consequences and practical state of being-ness in the Afterlife, and you consider how it is different from the way things are here, you can see WHY you wanted to come here in the first place.  And knowing that you really did choose to come here on purpose is remarkably liberating.  To know that your challenges were chosen.  And if they are pretty horrific or psychologically or physically challenging, to know that you thought you were up to the task of having them, and that you were exploring Who-You-Really-Are by meeting those challenges; well it makes life here pretty interesting and pretty important.  I mean, there must be some pretty important reason why I would put myself through such heartache.  I sure will be looking forward to the Life Review to see how well I did.

 

[anagogy]

I think I mainly mix up words poorly because my thoughts are not fully formed. Should probably wait some time.

But to reply to what you said, there is nothing which is not within illusions. But once they all are peeled off, what remains?

But what is an illusion? By definition it is:

-a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses.
-a deceptive appearance or impression.
-a false idea or belief.

Wrongly perceived implies there is a "correctly perceived" thing or state of being, which, as per deductive logic, could not be nothing else there would be nothing to perceive, or reinterpret.

As for what is perceived when illusions are stripped away, I still strongly feel it is formless, infinite, nondual consciousness, that occasionally imagines a hypothetical dream world in which separation exists. To be convinced otherwise I would either need some really good evidence, or some mighty strong logic.

[AnthroHeart]

Are we without time in time/space?

I like the practical.  So let me re-phase this question: what is "time" like in time/space?

First, I believe that the home environment for us 3d earthlings in the Afterlife looks, well, earth-like.  As above, so below.  So there are mountains and seas and clouds and trees.  (Hey, that rhymes!) 

Second, there is also a perpetual light akin to the perfect summer's day.  It never stops.  Some identify the light as being from the "central sun" but not our solar sun.  The day/night cycle we have here on Earth is one of the big "time" differences between space/time and time/space.  It is important enough to warrant depiction on tarot card 13 (Death) as the morning (or setting) sun.  I think Ra commented on the "diurnal period" and the way that it can allow for a daily reset to help one achieve one's life goals through catalyst.  (If at first you don't succeed, try and try again.)  So our "time" here is broken into daily cycles.  Associated with those cycles is the body's need for sleep and the fact that we fatigue.

But in the Afterlife's time/space, there is no "diurnal period" and no sleep and no fatigue.  We be spirits.  How would that impact our perceptions of the passage of time?  I suspect that after we wean ourselves from our earthly habits, we will come to find that perpetual light plus perpetual alertness equals a spacious sense of NOW-ness.  No matter what you "do" you have an unlimited, unfatigueable, time to do it.  

With no day/night cycle, there are no calendars to mark the passage of time.  With no need to sleep (or eat for that matter), a regular day's worth of time will already be three times longer than we expect.  No need for 10 hours sleep in every 24 hours, no need for breakfast, lunch or dinner (and all the time it takes to prepare those meals) leaves us with an awful lot of time.  Imagine how much longer the days would be here without eating or sleeping?

We may be psychologically aware of time's passage back on Earth (for example, if we choose to keep track of the loved ones we left behind) and we might coordinate with them to celebrate major holidays, but we are essentially freed from all of time's burdens: fatigue, sleep, aging.  We have, literally unlimited time to do what we want to do in the eternal NOW. 

And, I submit, it is the very impermanence of Earth and its daily "time" that makes it so attractive to us.  Everything dies here.  It is a world of loss and boundaries and confinement.  And we, seeking to know who we really are, our Authentic Selves, so to speak, joyously jump down here into physical bodies to try and know about ourselves as we confront the physical and psychological limits of the place.  We can't do that in the Afterlife.  Spirit = no pain, no injury, no tiredness, no sleep, no limits.  (Would seem to take all the fun out of team sports, eh?  Or even solo sport activities.  If you really want to know what your physical limits are, and what it feels like to have world-class physical prowess and the intellectual determination to achieve such prowess, you must come down here to discover it for yourself!)

When you think about the logical consequences and practical state of being-ness in the Afterlife, and you consider how it is different from the way things are here, you can see WHY you wanted to come here in the first place.  And knowing that you really did choose to come here on purpose is remarkably liberating.  To know that your challenges were chosen.  And if they are pretty horrific or psychologically or physically challenging, to know that you thought you were up to the task of having them, and that you were exploring Who-You-Really-Are by meeting those challenges; well it makes life here pretty interesting and pretty important.  I mean, there must be some pretty important reason why I would put myself through such heartache.  I sure will be looking forward to the Life Review to see how well I did.

 

I feel so fortunate to be like the world's 0.5% that got to read that. I didn't come here without something to really gratify me.

[AnthroHeart]

As for what is perceived when illusions are stripped away, I still strongly feel it is formless, infinite, nondual consciousness, that occasionally imagines a hypothetical dream world in which separation exists. To be convinced otherwise I would either need some really good evidence, or some mighty strong logic.

That would seem like the most fundamental of belief systems I have heard. Imagining we are truly infinity makes the most sense.

[Minyatur]

I think I mainly mix up words poorly because my thoughts are not fully formed. Should probably wait some time.

But to reply to what you said, there is nothing which is not within illusions. But once they all are peeled off, what remains?

But what is an illusion? By definition it is:

-a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses.
-a deceptive appearance or impression.
-a false idea or belief.

Wrongly perceived implies there is a "correctly perceived" thing or state of being, which, as per deductive logic, could not be nothing else there would be nothing to perceive, or reinterpret.

As for what is perceived when illusions are stripped away, I still strongly feel it is formless, infinite, nondual consciousness, that occasionally imagines a hypothetical dream world in which separation exists. To be convinced otherwise I would either need some really good evidence, or some mighty strong logic.

To me intelligent infinity is simply the singularity of itself, a state of everythingness within the void. You were right that my use of nothingness was poor, because even emptiness is alive, which is why there is the first distortion that contains infinity and internalizes it within the void.

I think what I am trying to get that is that the core of everything is infinite in illusions, in resistance to it's true nature. If I remember correctly, some channeling of Latwii or Hatonn said the Creator seeks to know itself by exploring what it is not, and so here I think that what it is not is infinity, infinity then is there to make constrast to the empty nature of the Creator that contains the potential of infinite illusions.

I also don't think separation is an occasional thing, except perhaps at the level of the creative principle of the Logos, which then again, of itself simply exist in a greater degree of separation beyond our own. Separation to me has infinite dimensions and each are infinite of themselves.

[AnthroHeart]

I have a question. Is the void the same as nothingness? If we found ourselves in the void, would it freak us out?

[ricdaw]

To me intelligent infinity is simply the singularity of itself, a state of everythingness within the void.

I think intelligent infinity has the same "I" and the one I feel right now as "me."

When I meet "God" its going to turn out to be me sitting in that chair.  And I'm going to recognize the banality of it all; that god was me all along.

And when you meet intelligent infinity, you too will have the same "ah ha" moment of instant recognition of yourself.

OMG!  It was me all along!

Or "we" all along.

Because All is One.

[Minyatur]

To me intelligent infinity is simply the singularity of itself, a state of everythingness within the void.

I think intelligent infinity has the same "I" and the one I feel right now as "me."

When I meet "God" its going to turn out to be me sitting in that chair.  And I'm going to recognize the banality of it all; that god was me all along.

And when you meet intelligent infinity, you too will have the same "ah ha" moment of instant recognition of yourself.

OMG!  It was me all along!

Or "we" all along.

Because All is One.

I already perceived that infinite moment in meditation, when infinity meets itself or rather finds back itself.