Aha I do not suggest dogma, by any means, but I also would not purport to suggest I know what people intend behind their words. Of course, I conjecture as do you and hypothesize intent. I honestly am not sure it would make a difference even if one of us is right! Aha
The part I put in bold is where I think I crossed terms over.
It is confusing how in one they say "unity has a potential and kinetic" and then also say "there is no difference, potential or kinetic, in unity", which means they are equating them as the same things, yet still using different words to talk about them. They also refer to the kinetic as intelligent energy, and the potential as intelligent infinity. Bit of word salad going on there I think.
Quote:27.5 Questioner: It is not necessary to divide it. The definition of intelligent infinity as one part is sufficient. Could you please now define intelligent infinity?
Quote:Ra: I am Ra. This is exponentially simpler and less confusing. There is unity. This unity is all that there is. This unity has a potential and kinetic. The potential is intelligent infinity. Tapping this potential will yield work. This work has been called by us, intelligent energy.
The nature of this work is dependent upon the particular distortion of free will which in turn is the nature of a particular intelligent energy or kinetic focus of the potential of unity or that which is all.
27.7 Questioner: Now I think I have extracted an important point from this in that in intelligent infinity we have work without polarity, or a potential difference does not have to exist. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. There is no difference, potential or kinetic, in unity. The basic rhythms of intelligent infinity are totally without distortion of any kind. The rhythms are clothed in mystery, for they are being itself. From this undistorted unity, however, appears a potential in relation to intelligent energy.
In this way you may observe the term to be somewhat two-sided, one use of the term, that being as the undistorted unity, being without any kinetic or potential side. The other application of this term, which we use undifferentiatedly for lack of other term in the sense of the vast potential tapped into by foci or focuses of energy, we call intelligent energy.
The part I put in bold is where I think I crossed terms over.
It is confusing how in one they say "unity has a potential and kinetic" and then also say "there is no difference, potential or kinetic, in unity", which means they are equating them as the same things, yet still using different words to talk about them. They also refer to the kinetic as intelligent energy, and the potential as intelligent infinity. Bit of word salad going on there I think.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)