Polarization and Polarity

[JustLikeYou]

One light, multiple colors. Unity.

The unity in 1.6 is the white light. The multiplicity is the spectral expansion. This is the identity of the One and the Many. When you look at white light, though, you do not see colors. You see only one thing. This is how there is no multiplicity in unity.

So much is stated even in answer 1.6: "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. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity."

As I have said, unity means no multiplicity. There is not sameness, because there are not two things to be the same. There is only one. There is the white light and nothing else. Ra's example of the prism is designed to show us how unity is the underlying reality behind multiplicity. If Ra meant that there were multiplicity in unity, Ra would not have said "that which is infinite cannot be many" followed by "you must define that infinity as unity."

Now who is the one speaking in absolute terms? Then let me ask you this: Have you ever accomplished this feat of superhuman "selflessness" of which you speak?

This is hardly a superhuman selflessness. It is not a vibration I occupy every moment of the day, but it is not foreign to me. I know very well what it feels like to be moved to action by compassion without consideration for myself. This is what it feels like when all you want to do is help. I also know what it feels like to have to restrain that compassion through the wisdom that giving of myself without consideration for the circumstances of the situation may not result in much service. This is what it feels like when you want so badly to help, but know you can't.

These are not superhuman experiences. They are very common. The name for these experiences is "sincerity." And, quite frankly, I have found that making use of a philosophy which does not distinguish service to self from service to others muddies these feelings. It is not useful for me to have conscious thoughts about serving myself as I serve another, because this often leads to insincere service, such as intentionally trying to build up "good karma." As I have said, a philosophy is only worth the paper it is written on if it can be put to practical use. What seems amiss to me in your philosophy is that it does not seem particularly practical. You can accuse me of projection all you like, but there is a difference between distinguishing a real disagreement and inventing one. This disagreement is real. I grasp the disagreement now, and I will press you no further.