Bring4th

Sorry for double posting but I saw the Q'uote of the day (I lol everytime with the pun), and thought it was relevant to the conversation.

"When you see judgment, you know that you have, somehow, lost the way to a true understanding of unconditional love. The one known as Jesus�hung from the cross, unjustly judged, in the story of its Crucifixion. And, in that story, two thieves and murderers hung, one on each side. And one of those thieves said to the one known as Jesus the Christ, �I know I don�t deserve it, but, Lord, when you come to paradise, will you think of me?� And the one known as Jesus said, �This day you shall be with me in paradise.�

Does your Creator open Its arms and say, �Everybody in�? If so, my friends, you are on the right track. And if you run into an entity whose fear of not making that heavenly gate is such that it must cling to judgment, then bless that entity on its way and find ways to relate to that entity as a soul and not as a personality. Lift up beyond the details of its judgment of you and focus on your total acceptance of it. For it, too, is the Creator."

-Q'uo


*flies away*

Yeah, well, having others hate me might even turn out to be a positive thing, because it can remind me that I shouldn't care. As Buddha said, giving a f*** is the root of all suffering.

I do need to transcend this shitty catalyst, but I'm not giving up, and not giving in. There has to be a way out... there is a way out... it'll come to me.

Satan knows I've made enough noise that if there is anything in the universe that wishes me well and wants me free, it's heard me by now.

Yes, I have, and you can count me as at least one person who does not hate you.

With your permission I will happily breath through and break all those etheric chains you've got wrapped around you.

~



The Will of Allah


'May the will of Allah be done,' a pious man was saying about something or other.


'It always is, in any case,' said Mulla Nasrudin.


'How can you prove that, Mulla?'


'Quite simply. If it wasn't always being done, then surely at some time or another my will would be done, wouldn't it?'


-- from Idries Shah, The Subtleties of the Inimitable Nasrudin (London: Octagon Press, 1983) [font=Georgia]http://www.idriesshahfoundation.org/books/the-subtleties-of-the-inimitable-mulla-nasrudin/  [/font]





[font=Arial]1.7 Questioner: [The question was lost because the questioner was sitting too far from the tape recorder to be recorded.][/font]


Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

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. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. 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.

May we enunciate this law in more detail?




(Of course, in the next parallel-universe over, just to starboard of ours, there's a slightly different "True Science of Parallel Universes" video.)







(NOTE: Objects In Mirror Closer Than They Appear. Your Mirrorage May Vary.)



 

(03-25-2017, 02:42 PM)Mahakali Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-25-2017, 12:36 PM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: [ -> ]Man, I sometimes marvel at Ra's ability to state the most grandiose things in such banal ways.  This is quite possibly the single most important and mind-blowing piece of information he ever imparted aside from the LOO itself, but he tosses it out so casually and succinctly that a reader could easily overlook it.

But anyway, what I wonder about - and perhaps it's near the heart of this whole discussion - is whether merely imagining the outcome is sufficient to create a p/p complex.  I have a suspicion that's not enough, and that to truly enter the realm of potentiality or opportunity, a viable path towards that outcome must also be conceived of as well.  And that, in particular, this would be true of Earth and other "mechanistic" realms like it which have their own internal rule set that is enforced through commonly shared distortions.

Like, as a silly example I use as my test case for thought experiments:  Would it be possible for (X) to become the Queen of England?

If one takes the stance that literally ALL imaginable possibilities, full stop, are possible merely upon conceiving them, then that would mean that there exist individual realities where absolutely every person on Earth has somehow found a way to become the Queen of England.  In this scenario, every X is solvable merely by saying it's solvable.

But at the same time, the set of internal rules governing who can be Queen of England are quite clear and universally agreed upon by other Earthlings, give or take a few outliers.  So how could it be possible, for any definition of "possible," for a boy born into the isolated Sentinelese tribe to become Queen of England?  Everything about the scenario from his own local tribal xenophobia, to the simple definitional agreement that a male cannot be a capital-Q Queen, work against the idea.  Not to mention the problem of how to get him into the bloodline.

And further: what about people who don't even want to be Queen of England?  Is a coronation somewhere in their omniversal fate regardless?

So, based on these thought experiments, I've come to conclude that infinite potential does NOT equate to infinite outcomes.  While Intelligent Infinity itself allows the possibility of all possibilities, so to speak, localized distortions and mechanized rule-following subvert that to render certain outcomes impossible to achieve within specific given systems.

(But, of course, this still allows for a truly staggering number of achievable possibility/probability complexes none the less.)

Well, there appear to be two ways of thinking about things like this. Some people will take an outlandish idea like, "I want to become the queen of England," and immediately list off a dozen reasons why they'll never become the queen of England, despite infinite possibility, and then some people will take the same idea and find a way to make it happen.

We all admit that it's entirely possible. It's a half-empty or half-full situation, and that sort of thinking is what makes all the difference in magick.

Thinking the more limited way will ensure that you can never experience being the queen of England, while thinking the more unlimited way allows the possibility a chance of coming to fruition.

The former way of thinking is really just a leftover of fundamentalist materialist thinking mixed with a heavy dash of leftover Judeo-Christian guilt complex ("this idea is liberating and makes me feel good, so it's impossible and unhealthy to think this way; big things could never be within my reach"). That type of thinking is encouraged by the people who run society precisely because possibility is infinite.

Let's try something different and think of a way that such a thing might be possible.

If you wanted to become the queen of England, all you'd have to do is jump to the right time/space location, which would mean learning to change your body from space/time to time/space and learning to move within time/space to a degree sufficient to lock phase with events that happened in the "past". Which, I think, wouldn't mean going to the "past" as most people understand it as much as creating  new set of patterns with a bunch of previous patterns used as material; re-using props or bits of computer code.

This is why they kicked Koetting's ass - because he was selling a book about how to become a god. And why they kicked mine - because I was trying to experiment with unlimited infinity. And why they tried to kill the tower of Babel - because they were trying to build a ladder to "heaven"/godhood.

If there's nothing to it, why do they go to so much effort to hurt people who play around with that distortion, instead of letting them end up in the mental asylums or graveyards they would if it was all a bunch of bunk, and why do they go to so much trouble to suppress information related to time/space in academia, culture, and mainstream religion? Why are groups like the O9A focusing on hunting down individuals who invoke godforms that involve omnipotence?

Reality is just a bunch of patterns, so, really, you'd have to learn to manipulate your personal reference point in relation to those patterns.

A real adept could do it, and real adepthood should be the goal for anyone who is studying occultism.

Yes, I think that merely thinking about an outcome creates a pathway to the outcome. Seth states in no uncertain terms that this is the case, and goes so far as to say that our every thought and emotion creates worlds.

I think it'd be akin to installing a mod on a computer game... not everyone who plays the game in the entire world has to have the same mod installed.

It's all about increasing awareness. All the rules can be broken, and the point of magick is to challenge reality, to break through its boundaries, not to sit there talking about how we could never do something.

Seth talks about an existence in which there is no lack of space or time to work in, in which one can experience and mix and match any period of human history, time sequences or lack thereof, build physical materials out of thought, choose whether it's day or night, or experience a whole human existence in the blink of an eye, and use these patterns to paint with freely.

This is the goal. Within such a framework, we can do anything. Experiencing the lifetime of every queen of England who's ever lived would be possible, to the point where Seth says that you'd have to be careful to stay focused or you might forget who you are because of the vividness of the experience, and that this has happened to his colleagues before.

He says that we exist in basically the same existential framework as him unconsciously.

So. How do we get to that point? What's the next step?

The Seth idea of probable realities is highly questionable. Ra does mention it somewhere, but there is much less emphasis on probable realities in the Law of One.

I wonder if simply Seth's view is not the study done in time/space of precedents incarnations we did. And then we can construct and deconstruct at will, but simply in thought or visions. As a process of study.