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

[Quantum]

Interestingly as a result this suggests that awareness is a distortion, a down-stepped devolution rather than an outgrowth and up-stepped evolution?

Why do you equate distortion with 'down-stepping devolution' as though it were something negative?

I don't. I suggest it in the context of what unity100 states that 'he" does. Re-read what unity100 writes, i.e. that either the One Infinite Creator apparently must have already been aware (which is contrary to the LOO) or that the One Infinite Creator now aware came after the fact, which certainly implies the Creator is not Infinity but a 2ndary subordinate to it and thus created or segmented from it, as opposed to previously simply being Infinity unaware as Ra states, and to which unity100 disagrees that Infinity being Infinite must have been also aware(which again is simply openly contrary to the Ra quote). Ra states very clearly that Infinity very definitely was at one point unaware. unity100 disagrees and has no problem doing so as he states.
May I ask your simple opinion as to which you believe, so that we are clear? Do you believe that the One Infinite Creator that Ra greets us in in every single session is not the same as was Infinity once unaware that now is? ....and which is not unity100's Infinity?

Here then are unity100's statements in summation:
1. Infinity was always aware according to unity100, contrary to Ra.
2. The Creator is not Infinity "that became aware"(as explicitly stated by unity100 above in his response) but is rather the creator (with a little "c") contained within Infinity, this contrary to Ra.
3. We as the Creator are not Infinity, this contrary to Ra, this by the simple statement wherein Ra states many times over that "we are the Creator."
4. Awareness, according to unity100, is seemingly the first distortion given that awareness was the first movement of Infinity, contrary to Ra given that free will was the 1st distortion.

Respectfully, Quantum, I don't think your 'summation' of the many nuances presented by unity100 is accurate.

Agreed. unity100 indeed makes very many compelling arguments for Infinity for which we owe him gratitude. Credit where credit is due. These are not at issue however. Its the ones that are contrary and openly so that I address. What part of the summation do you disagree with respect to what unity100 wrote? These are his words, not mine.

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

Illusion now has become real in the morass of words and deduction. Clearly illusion feels real. But just as certain illusion as illusion is not real.

What do you mean by 'not real?' If it's 'not real' then are you suggesting it exists outside of infinity?
If infinity contains all, then how can something exist outside of it?
How can anything truly be 'not real?'
Illusion doesn't necessarily mean 'not real.' It can also mean distorted.....Most illusion have some sort of basis in reality. Even the seemingly illusory oasis in the desert seen by a person dying of thirst, has its basis in physical reality. There is a logical, physiological explanation as to why he thinks he sees an oasis. A magician's magic trick also has a basis in reality. The reality just isn't what we are led to believe it is.

"Most illusion have their basis in reality"? You mean some do and some don't? Which ones do and which ones don't? More importantly, which ones as an example don't?

...Again, if illusion isn't real, then is it outside infinity?

Great question. The mask is given by the Creator to the Creator as so poetically and exquisitely shared by βαθμιαίος as "an exquisitely-wrought mask for infinity. It is as the carefully-crafted gift that our logos is offering to the Creator so that it may know itself." It is therefore very much within Infinity. But except for that which does not exist, we may dispense with what is and is not within Infinity questions as it is self-evident that all that exists is within Infinity. But we must agree that there are things which do not exist. There are things which do not exist within this context, are there not? Were it otherwise then Infinity would be less than Intelligent Infinity. Certainly the Creator wishes and desires for some things not to exist. Certainly there exist fine laws, rules, order, and a system within Infinity as opposed to EVERYTHING exists in Infinity. This does not limit Infinity but rather orders it intelligently. Galaxies and planets do not spin and revolve in both directions simultaneously just because it is a consideration within Infinity. Nor do dragons decimate villages and planets just because it is a consideration within Infinity. So no, not everything is in Infinity. In fact in this context it may be argued that there are a great many more things which are not in Infinity than there are those things which are in Infinity.
This answers your following questions"

What is 'real?' How do we define 'real' in a holographic UniVerse where thoughts are things, and time can be traversed as easily as we now traverse space?

Answered above. But not everything is real....correct? I imagine there are things the Creator wishes not to create or imagine, don't you? I imagine my thoughts are not as real in this context as you imagine yours are. God, I hope many of my thoughts are not real. This is what I mean about becoming lost in a morass of words about things we can never resolve. For example, are thoughts really real????

I am referring to the illusion as an entity unto itself. Illusion exists.

An entity as I understand it is a sentient life replete with senses. How do you define entity? Clearly an illusion requires a sentient being to have one, but this is not to suggest that an illusion then is a sentient being? I am open to understanding more on this as a concept. If I may have an illusion which is not real, given that some illusion are not real, such as a delusion, then is that also an entity, a sentient being? Illusions do not emanate from themselves...do they? Again, we become lost in a morass of words and concepts.

An excellent point to return to "unity100 philosophy" versus "The LOO."

Quantum, we are all doing our best to understand the Law of One. I don't think any one person's views can be accused of being contradictory to the Law of One just because their interpretation of Ra's words may be different from our own.

Most of us are doing our best to understand. Agreed. Some of us however openly do not agree with some of the points of the LOO which is contrary to understanding and is in fact an admission to disagreement. I am not accusing unity of anything. He openly accuses himself of being in disagreement ( i.e. contrary) to some of the LOO and Ra quotes. This may not be defined as an interpretation that is different when it is his opinion in admission and disagreement to Ra that is different. Let us be fair and not suggest that accusations are being made when in fact admissions are being written.They are unity100's words. unity100 states he has no problems disagreeing with some of the LOO or Ra by his own statements. If he disagrees openly and honestly, as he does, for which I commend him for his forthrightness and integrity, how else may one phrase what he openly states as an admission of disagreement other than as contradictory? Contrary is a word with a definition. There is no judgment or condemnation where in fact there is admission. It is an admission, honestly and openly so. Having said all this, I understand fully your greater motive of attempting to keep a decorum of civility and a modicum of order. It is good that you do so. But let also a mans truth and admission stand as his own as well that he disagrees.

However to your point that infinity, the One Infinite Creator, is without distortion. It is according to Ra. My response as a reconciliation to these seeming contradictions you posit is is that We may don on our masks of illusion, but we are not our masks. Behind our masks are us.

So, am I understanding you correctly? You are saying that:
1. We are the Creator
2. We are infinity
3. Illusion ('mask') is not real; therefore not part of infinity
4. We can don our mask or take it off
5. Since we are ALL, and we can exclude our masks, then the masks are...not part of ALL?

1. yes
2. yes
3. answered above, i.e. some illusions are real, some are not. Not real must also be part of infinity albeit non-manifest
4. We are Infinity behind the mask. This is in no manner to suggest that all are capable of performing higher mathematics or concerto piano pieces anymore than All are capable of said mask removing. They are lost in their masks as shared previously, but lost by choice versus a terrible punishment inflicted upon them. Are we not here to pierce the mask (veil)? Some have. I suggest that there have been adepts that certainly have. They are the Way-showers. They certainly have removed their masks. Don't you agree?
5. The masks are indeed part of the All as shared

You make a beautiful poetic reference to this below:
[quote=monica]I think of illusion as an exquisitely-wrought mask for infinity. It's the carefully-crafted gift that our logos is offering to the Creator so that it may know itself.

This statement was made by βαθμιαίος, not me.

My apologies βαθμιαίος. It remains a beautific piece of mystical prose.

I contend that the illusion too is part of infinity. Nothing can be outside infinity.

Sure it can. That which is not created and so illusory that it does not exist. We go in circles.

1. I am not my mask. I am not illusion.
2. Infinity is not illusion. Infinity is not the mask.
3. Infinity contains and offers illusion as the mask. The mask is finity.
4. Finity is illusion.
5. Ergo, if I am not the mask and not the illusion, I am Infinity. I am the Creator. I am Infinity masked. I am the Creator masked. I am not finite.
6. I am infinite infinity choosing to be finite as a gift to the Creator myself through the mask of illusion.

Well, I guess that pretty much settles it. We're just going to have to agree to disagree!

I have little more to offer than the many quotes βαθμιαίος so brilliantly already ofered with his many explanations.

Much of this entire dialog which unity 100 created, although interesting enough, is completely contrary to the Ra Material. Period.

You are entitled to your opinion!

unity100 is entitled to his opinions in this case, not I mine. It is he that offered them and he that stated they were in disagreement to the Ra quotes, not I. Mind you, this in no manner is meant to convey that EVERYTHING untiy100 offers is out of order. Certainly not. He has offered some rather compelling thought and dialog generally to the concept of Infinity.Some of it is very much in order. That which is contrary has been recited several times.

It is honestly pointed out by unity100 that he disagrees with Ra. Let us not miss this. What are we speaking to then? βαθμιαίος has placed himself into the position of arguing for Ra whilst unity100 is arguing against.

This too is your opinion. The opposite can just as easily be argued. Who is to say who is correct? None of us can authoritatively speak for Ra. We can only offer our own interpretations. This isn't a religion and it cannot be said that a certain member has it 'right' while another member is 'wrong.'

True enough. But we have unity100 stating it is contrary, not myself or βαθμιαίος, or anyone else. Let us be as forthright as he is by commending him for stating so, and for being as honest. His dialog as such has provided much for discussion.

May I in closing for clarity's sake ask your simple opinion once more? Which do you believe so that we are clear? Do you believe that the One Infinite Creator that Ra greets us in in every single session is not the same as was Infinity unaware, that now is (aware)?.........and which is not unity100's Infinity?

~ Q ~