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

[Monica]

What I'm getting at here is that, my understanding of infinity is without distortion. Undifferentiated.

Thus, if we are currently existing in an illusion, which is a distortion, we are currently not infinity, given the premise that infinity is undistorted.

As we evolve, we remove the distortion. I contend that this is why Ra meant by You are infinity...Ra was referring to our ultimate destination, not our current state.

I think unity100 is comparing our current state to our ultimate destination. Our current state isn't infinity, though our ultimate destination is.

Ra said "you are infinity," not "you will be infinity." Infinity is our current state.

Of course. Ra exists outside of linear time, so to Ra, our true state is what is seen. So Ra is trying to show us our true state. If we were seeing our true state, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

It's the only state there is.

I disagree with this, because I think whatever state we perceive is also valid. If we are currently perceiving finiteness, that too has its place.

If we perceive it, it is real.

This reminds me of the Christian Science philosophy, which states that everything is in a state of perfection, and anything less than that is a lie. I have an acquaintance who is a Christian Science practitioner and also an alternative health practitioner. She tells her clients that if they are sick (with cancer or whatever) that is because they don't have enough faith and are believing the 'lie.' Her entire counsel is to convince them to become strong enough in their faith that they are perfect in every way: perfect health, perfect relationships, perfect prosperity, etc.

No regard is given to the purpose of catalyst. Anything undesirable is denied.

To me, this seems to negate the value of catalyst and experience. I think she is doing these people a disservice. Many of them die from their illness in a state of guilt because they didn't believe strongly enough.

This discussion has reminded me of that because our current state of finiteness seems to be denied. My understanding of the arguments put forth is that the illusion is somehow not valid, and anything perceived inside the illusion doesn't even exist.

And yet, I think to say that, would be to negate the value of it. Our Logos chose to design this illusion for a reason. Who are we to say what is in the illusion doesn't exist?

We currently perceive from within the illusion; therefore it exists. Ra states that it exists. The fact that it is an illusion doesn't mean it isn't real.

Infinity contains everything; hence, everything is real, including that which is perceived inside the illusion. All is contained within infinity, and infinity is also contained within the illusion. The difference, as I perceive it, is that infinity has no limits, but infinity within an illusion has the limits of the illusion.

As Nassim states, there is 'infinitely large' and 'infinitely small' indicating outer infinity and inner infinity. Both are valid. But infinity, with no qualifiers, includes all.

Even Ra's statement, "You are infinity" contained an implicit qualifier: the word you. By its very nature, by being a definition, it is a qualifier. Who are we? That is the quest.

Finiteness isn't necessarily bad, something to be discarded. Here we are having a wonderful, respectful, stimulating discussion. We couldn't be doing that were it not for finiteness. Right now I am appreciating you, unity100, and everyone else who has participating in this discussion...marveling at your thought process.

This is finiteness in action! If finiteness weren't involved here, then I wouldn't be able to perceive the uniqueness of your thoughts, of your being, nor you of mine.

Finiteness is a piece of the puzzle. It has its place. It too is part of infinity.

There is no conflict. We can be both infinite and finite. Ra stated we are infinite. Ra also stated we have distortion, which I interpret to mean finiteness. There is not only 1 state; there are infinite states, of finiteness. But only ONE infinity.

I am reminded of numerology, which states that zero is the undifferentiated. This is the number of The Fool in Tarot. It is nothing and yet everything. It is the state at which we begin our journey, and the state we ultimately return to. The Fool is the beginner on the path of Tarot, and yet the most advanced. That seems to be a paradox but it is actually quite profound.

In numerology, the zero then manifests, which is the number ONE. The number ONE is the number of focusing infinity into intelligent infinity...it is the creative force. Thus, the beginning of distortion.

Then is TWO, which is polarity.

I don't know the exact correspondence, but I know that numerology, Tarot, astrology, Kabalah etc. all overlap. The archetypes are expressed in all these systems. All are describing the intricacies of distortion. All are contained in the nothingness/ALL which are the same...infinity.

We are The Fool. But we are also all the other archetypes along the way. All are valid. Unless we can claim to be in a constant state of The Fool archetype, I don't think we can claim to be in a perfect state of infinity at all times. We traverse the Tree of Life, corresponding to the Tarot archetypes, astrology and numerology. This is the sacred path and it embraces both infinity and finiteness. I am suggesting that we honor our finiteness as well as our infinite nature.

We don't perceive it to be our current state because we have chosen to limit our perception. That limited perception is the illusion.

If we have limited our perception, for whatever reason, then we have essentially created another state. This other state, of finiteness, has its purpose too. I don't think we should negate it just because it is illusory and temporary. If it didn't have a purpose, we wouldn't be in it.

But what is the 'mask' ...the illusion? We have discussed why it exists, but do we know what it is?

The mask is the "illusory system of natural laws" that our logos has created for Infinite Intelligence to explore itself.

It exists, and it creates an environment for us to experience finiteness. Thus, that is also a valid state. One is not mutually exclusive of the other.

Taken alone, the words You are infinity would appear to mean as you indicate, but what I'm proposing is that we consider those words along with other words, to flesh out their meaning. I'm proposing that these words were intended to describe our true state, without distortion, not our current, distorted, finite state.

Do you mean other words from Ra? If so, please provide them. I have provided many, many quotes from Ra in support of my position in this thread.

All the words about distortion and illusion, some of which I too provided.

Agreed. The reason I am in agreement with unity100 that our current state is being expressed as finite, is that this is the perspective we are operating from.

We may indeed possess both states, but unless we are accessing the infinite state, I don't see how we can really answer the question from that state.

My argument is that we can choose which state we want to answer the question from.

I agree! But I don't see anyone doing that right now!

Perhaps so. Or perhaps it is yet another layer of illusion. Not even Ra has plumbed the mystery.

If we do access the Creator's viewpoint, and can speak from that viewpoint, then we could speak with certainty about that which we can now only speculate.

Ra says that opening violet ray is contact with intelligent infinity. It's not illusory.

OK. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that, even Ra states that there are mysteries even they cannot plumb. Maybe they aren't illusory, but they are certainly mysterious, so that implies some sort of, perhaps more subtle, mask in the higher octaves as well.

Ra said each portion of any pattern contains infinity.

Right, it contains infinity. Before you said "contain the pattern of infinity." What they actually said is "contains infinity."

What are you referring to by 'it'?

Yes, I did say that, based on the above quote from Ra.

You seem to be leaving out the prepositional phrase of any portion. This is important. It is a qualifier.

To say "any portion of anything" is not the same as saying, for example, "any portion of any apple."

Ra didn't say any portion contains infinity. Ra said any portion of any pattern contains infinity.

This is another of the quotes that I am suggesting we take into consideration, and then consider the sum total of all the quotes, rather than just a single quote.

Sure. But from which perspective are we discussing? We are not in just a single state at all times.

That's exactly the issue. I maintain that we can choose the infinite perspective. It's available to us through faith and will. My understanding of unity100's position is we are limited to the finite perspective.

I agree that it is available to us. I also agree with unity100 that no one in this discussion, at this point of time, is offering that perspective.

In all fairness, my interpretation of unity100's position is not that we are limited to finiteness, but that we are currently expressing the limitation of finiteness. Again, I don't want to speak for him, but saying that we are currently expressing finiteness is not the same as saying we are limited to finiteness. Although, I would add that, as long as we have identity, we have distortion, and thus some degree of finiteness.

Thus, I would agree with unity100 (if that is indeed what he meant) that, as long as we are differentiated, there is the finiteness of that differentiation. However, there is infinity within that finiteness.

Perhaps (unity100, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you) what he meant was that, as long as we are entities, we are limited to the finiteness of being entities. I would agree with this. As long as we are entities, we aren't infinity, in its whole, undistorted form, without any qualifiers. Being an entity is a qualifier and a limit of finiteness.

I don't see this as an issue, though. We can experience infinity from within our selves, and that is the same pattern as the infinite whole, because we are holographic. I really don't see a conflict. I am happy and content to be a holographic pattern of the whole. I would not claim to be the whole, although I understand that the whole is contained within me, and I in it.

And I think unity100 is correct on this point. I misspoke. To correct my statement: I would say the One Infinite Creator is less distorted than we are, so closer to infinity.

That's fine, but it does disagree with Ra, who said "the One Creator which is infinity."

The One Creator is infinity. We are infinity. And yet, Ra provided other quotes that showed a distinction between the 2, and other quotes that showed a distinction between infinity and distortion. All of those quotes must be taken together, not one by itself.

Thank for you the stimulating and respectful discussion! This is fun!

Note: Post has been edited.

---

:exclamation::exclamation::exclamation::exclamation::exclamation::exclamation::exclamation:

I would like to direct everyone to this thread's sister thread, where the discussion of infinity continues:

Strictly Law of One > Biased view of STS...and INFINITY

Beginning with post 48, the thread takes a turn into discussion of infinity. Normally, I would merge the threads, but the discussion goes into such deep areas, as well as continuing its own topic, that we'd lose cohesiveness if I did that. But I invite everyone to read that thread too, as many contributing points are made there.