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

[Monica]

As Ra says, and Turtle pointed out, any concept of the one intelligent infinity is incorrect.

Agreed.

You also said: "I understand from them that the infinity contained within us is indeed the undifferentiated whole."

How are these 2 statements reconciled?

I don't disagree that within the illusion our normal experience of infinity is within limits. But I do understand Ra to be saying that, if we do the disciplined work of opening violet ray, we can experience infinity without limits.

This is where we disagree. Here's my take on it:

Do we meditate forever? Or do we meditate for only a few minutes or an hour?

Unless we leave this reality and never return, and are absorbed back into Oneness, then our experience of infinity has at least one limit: TIME.

Thus, is it not infinity without limits.

But does it matter? Our experience of infinity, even within a limit, is still so vast.

I'm probably repeating myself now. What I understood from unity100, and the part I agree with him on, was that any form whatsoever indicates a limitation of some sort.

I don't disagree with that, either.

Then I really don't understand the disagreement. Experiencing infinity while meditating, while accessing violet ray, etc. are all constraints of form.

Thus, I don't understand how it could be said that it's infinity undifferentiated.

I think we're getting closer to agreement. I don't disagree at all that our present state of awareness is limited. That's really the point I'm trying to make. Our awareness is limited because of our choice to explore finity. If we could but drop the limited awareness, our awareness would again be that of the Creator. And we can drop the limits by either opening violet ray or by reaching seventh density. It's very true that both usually take a great deal of time and effort, but Ra does say that it can be done in a moment.

Yes, but unless we can remain in that state infinitely, it still has a constraint of time, and therefore is not infinite in all ways.

I do disagree with the idea that when Ra said we are infinity they were referring to some future state. Here is a longer excerpt from that quote: "You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. 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."

As you can see, there's nothing in the quote referring to a future state. As I understand it, they are explaining how things are right now.

As I responded earlier, Ra exists outside of linear time, so a future state to us might be present state to them. Remember, Ra sees time like we see geography.

Respectfully, and I'm just trying to understand you here so I'm offering the feedback of how I'm interpreting your words, your words seem to imply to me that because it's illusion, it's not really a limit.

I see it as a self-imposed limit.

Agreed. But I see that as irrelevant. It is a limit, nonetheless.

My contention is that the illusion itself IS the limit! It is no less real because it is illusion.

I agree.

OK. Progress. We agree that the illusion is a limit. The bottom line of disagreement is whether we can access infinity when we are in an altered state, and thus outside of the illusion.

I agree that we can access infinity when in a state of meditation. To get down to the crux of our disagreement, it is only whether that infinity still has any limits. I contend that it still has the limit of time, and therefore is not infinity unqualified.

I agree, as long as you're saying that we can cast aside the illusion in meditation.

Sure. Temporarily. And, in some future state, permanently.

OK, so then do you agree that, 'we' having identity presents a qualifier, and therefore a distortion, and therefore a limit? (as long as we identify with ourselves as self.)

Yes.

Then, it logically follows that we aren't infinity, in the sense of the One, undifferentiated, undistorted whole, because:

"As Ra says, and Turtle pointed out, any concept of the one intelligent infinity is incorrect."

I'd say a distortion qualifies as a concept.

True, and on that point we may still disagree. Of course, I don't really know, and I'm not claiming I do. But I do trust Ra, and I understand from them that the infinity contained within us is indeed the undifferentiated whole.

This is subject to interpretation. I've made my case.

My understanding from unity100 is that he is trying to make the point that the undifferentiated, undistorted infinity cannot be defined or contained, and thus, any attempts to even discuss it, are about something else (what I would call infinity within the limits of finity) rather than about infinity.

The thing is, I'm not trying to discuss or define undifferentiated, undistorted infinity. I'm trying to understand our finite, distorted experience.

OK, now I'm confused! Didn't you just say that the whole, undifferentiated infinity exists within us?

Unity100 said "infinity can never be finity. because, if it could, it means it wasnt infinity from the start." I agree with this. Infinity can't be finity. The question then is how does finity come about. My answer, which I've really just cribbed, to the best of my ability, from Ra, is that infinity masks or distorts itself into the illusion we experience. That means that it's still infinity; it just appears, from our limited viewpoint, not to be.

Sure. From infinity's viewpoint, it's still infinity. From ours, it's not. But ours is included in infinity's viewpoint, as is everything.

I do still respectfully contend that there is another layer of meaning in this quote, and it is found by paying attention to the prepositional phrase contained therein.

What I was trying to object to was when you used that quote to support the idea that we contain the pattern of infinity rather than infinity itself. My point is that Ra said each portion of any illusory pattern contains infinity, not that each portion contains the pattern of infinity.

The miscommunication has to do with the very term we are attempting to define: infinity.

To clarify: I agree that we contain infinity. As I've stated, several times, I believe we contain infinity, within the limitation of our identity as an individual entity. To the degree that we maintain that identity, we still have infinity within, but we also have the limitation of being an entity. We can temporarily cast aside that individual identity and experience Oneness, but we return to our awareness of self; hence, we aren't yet infinite in all directions.

Yet, the potential is always there...the pattern of infinity in all directions.

As for the quote, this too is subject to interpretation. Perhaps both our interpretations are valid.

Let's look at it again:

"any portion of any density or illusory pattern ... contains the One Creator which is infinity."

If it's a portion, then it has differentiation...it has distortion. You just agreed with me that anything that is distorted is not the whole. Therefore, the way I interpret it, a portion cannot be the whole, or even contain the whole, because then that would be the whole within the limits of the portion, and thus still having limits and thus not the whole! but I DO see how the portion can contain infinity...infinity within the limit of being a portion. ie. the pattern of the whole.

To me, this is saying that every pattern is infinite, and every portion of every pattern is infinite.

But that's still a concept, a distortion. And Ra said "any concept of the one intelligent infinity is incorrect."

Me, too. That's why I ask for quotes that disagree with what I'm saying Ra meant.

Hopefully, you've re-read the quotes I already provided. Just as I am re-reading the quotes you already provided.

It wasn't so much that my interpretation wasn't accepted as that it didn't seem to even be considered.

It's easy for any of us to assume that the other person isn't considering our viewpoint, when they disagree with it. I know I've been guilty of that before; I assumed that the other person couldn't possibly have considered my viewpoint, else how could they possibly disagree with it?