Bring4th

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...=1&ss=1#13

Quote:13.13 Questioner: Was the galaxy that we are in created by the infinite intelligence or was it created by a portion of the infinite intelligence?

Ra: I am Ra. The galaxy and all other things of material of which you are aware are products of individualized portions of intelligent infinity. As each exploration began, it, in turn, found its focus and became co-Creator. Using intelligent infinity each portion created an universe and allowing the rhythms of free choice to flow, playing with the infinite spectrum of possibilities, each individualized portion channeled the love/light into what you might call intelligent energy, thus creating the so-called Natural Laws of any particular universe.

Each universe, in turn, individualized to a focus becoming, in turn, co-Creator and allowing further diversity, thus creating further intelligent energies regularizing or causing Natural Laws to appear in the vibrational patterns of what you would call a solar system. Thus, each solar system has its own, shall we say, local coordinate system of illusory Natural Laws. It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity. Thus all begins and ends in mystery.

This means that, anything that is happening here, any complex idea, emotion, thought pattern, any knowledge, understanding perception, is shaped and formatted by the INDIVIDUALIZED logos, that manifests as this sun at the center.

this even includes the set of nature's laws.

it means, what is happening here, is derivative of the derivative of the derivative of the ........... nth derivative of the 'individual thought'.

in short, whats happening here may or may not be valid in general, leave aside being compatible with whats happening in any other place in this galaxy, leave aside universe or existence.

Why do you indentify the sun as this individualized logos? Could it not be that the whole solar system is part of this manifestation as Ra seems to say in your quote?

Quote:in short, whats happening here may or may not be valid in general, leave aside being compatible with whats happening in any other place in this galaxy, leave aside universe or existence.

This is correct, also these "laws" might vary over time. According to many, earth had periods in which the laws of physics and magick where slightly different.

Quote:It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity. Thus all begins and ends in mystery.

Also note this remark, it's extremely important... It must mean that it still contains the original thought even if it's the nth derivate. The part actually and paradoxically contains the whole. This includes you and me.

(11-19-2010, 02:20 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Why do you indentify the sun as this individualized logos? Could it not be that the whole solar system is part of this manifestation as Ra seems to say in your quote?

ra doesnt seem to say that in that quote. but more importantly :

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...c=1&ss=1#1

Quote:29.1 Questioner: Is our sun a sub-Logos or the physical manifestation of a sub-Logos?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

Sun is a manifestation of a sub logos.
....
(insert any number of potential sub logoi here that goes above to the central sun in order)
....
a central galactic sun is a manifestation of a sub logos.

which is in turn a sub logos of any sub logoi that is potentially in between it, and the central sun of this universe, which is in turn, a sub logos of the other sub logoi potentially in between it, and the central sun that created all these universes.

.........

your proposition goes to lump all the existing things in this solar system as sub logos (which is the sun here). this is wrong, because then we would just have to lump all the existing things in this galaxy as a sub logos themselves, and this would go all the way up to the initial central sun of all existence. then there would have no meaning to the concept 'sub logos'.

but there is ; as Ra tells us, anything that creates is a sub logos, and is a sub logos of a logos, that is in turn the sub logos of other sub logoi.

Quote:

Quote:It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity. Thus all begins and ends in mystery.

Also note this remark, it's extremely important... It must mean that it still contains the original thought even if it's the nth derivate. The part actually and paradoxically contains the whole. This includes you and me.

again this.

'containing a blueprint' does not mean that you can contain the infinite.

because, then there would be no way that you could be finite, and therefore experience freedom, love, or any kind of thing that only been able to come to being with the invention of finity.

'a picture of' does not mean 'itself'.

..........

in case you meant to say that they only contain the pattern of original thought, this would possibly indeed be true.

however, reverting back to that state of original thought would align the finite into the first finite concept that was discovered, and cause the entity to cease to exist as an entity, ending its freedoms, emotions, existence, because it would return to infinite intelligence and only be as free as the infinite intelligence is.

Below is my experience with this. It could be completely different from others here. Hopefully it does help some.

If we go with the holographic nature of the Universe, then even we could be considered a sub-Logos (insert how many subs needed). My experience is that when any spiritual mass is created, and becomes intelligent, it will keep growing because of Unity. It will continually exchange data with other entities. This exchange creates a growth that grows exponentially, because it's all about the data transferred. Spiritual Mass is like inertia. When it builds, it is harder to control. Control is different from command.

Eventually the growth gets too much for an entity to handle, because the increase in mass can throw off one's own balance. The entity then individualizes itself, which creates a separation from the extra spiritual mass. This sub-entity does have connection to the Entity it separated from.

The shifting from entity to sub-entity is like shifting from control to command over the energies. Command allows balance. Control forces one to keep balance consciously.

Individualization slows things down, since it becomes more difficult to balance as the Entity keeps growing. Entity individualizing to sub-Entity is one of the greatest gifts.

I asked because it seemed you're jumping to conclusions unity...

Ra states the sun is a sub logos of a sub logos..
Ra also states the solar system is a sub logos.
This means the sun could be the sub logos that governs the solar system

But it could also mean the sun logos is a sub logos to the solar system logos.

How do you know which one it is?

Unity Wrote:your proposition goes to lump all the existing things in this solar system as sub logos (which is the sun here). this is wrong, because then we would just have to lump all the existing things in this galaxy as a sub logos themselves, and this would go all the way up to the initial central sun of all existence. then there would have no meaning to the concept 'sub logos'.

The following quote should clarify that it is the case in spite of your objections which were literally noted by Ra.

Ra Wrote:28.9 Questioner: Then what you are saying is that the lenticular star system which we call a galaxy that we find ourselves in with approximately 250 billion other suns like our own was created by a single Logos. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

28.10 Questioner: Since there are many individualized portions of consciousness in this lenticular galaxy, did this Logos then subdivide into more individualization of consciousness to create these consciousnesses?
Ra: I am Ra. You are perceptive. This is also correct although an apparent paradox.

28.11 Questioner: Could you tell me what you mean by an apparent paradox?
Ra: I am Ra. It would seem that if one Logos creates the intelligent energy ways for a large system there would not be the necessity or possibility of the further sub-Logos differentiation. However, within limits, this is precisely the case, and it is perceptive that this has been seen.

Ra spells out here that what you detect as a paradox is in fact real. It would also seem his compliments about being perceptive extend to you.

Unity Wrote:'containing a blueprint' does not mean that you can contain the infinite.

Ra didn't say blueprint, he said "the one creator which is infinity". You are literally contradicting Ra here.

Ra Wrote:It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity

Unity Wrote:because, then there would be no way that you could be finite, and therefore experience freedom, love, or any kind of thing that only been able to come to being with the invention of finity.

Yes there would still be a way. Ra is explaining that. A thing contains the infinite, but still manifests as finite. This is the essence of a hologram.

I understand it is immensely difficult for you to understand this. We've talked about this essential point a lot of times before. You never accepted it before, I don't expect you to do so now. But it is exactly what Ra is saying none the less. It is also not exclusive to the Law of One. This is a fairly common understanding among adepts of various traditions. And yes it seems like a paradox at first.

Unity Wrote:'a picture of' does not mean 'itself'.

You left out the most important word.. Hologram.. A fragment of a hologram is itself. We're not talking ordinary pictures here. If you haven't already, spend some time researching holograms. It will be a great advantage in the study of the universe. Since well... It is a hologram.

Gemini Wolf Wrote:If we go with the holographic nature of the Universe, then even we could be considered a sub-Logos

That would agree with what I know to be. We also have our own sub-logoi that govern our inner worlds and time share our body. According to sufi psychology, we are not one.. We are like the oversoul or logos governing many creatures. This incidentally also completely agrees with modern neurology. There is no homunculus. But each part is formed after us. Each part IS us but a different perspective on us... Just like a hologram. Every part of the image created by a hologram is a function of perspective.

Gemini Wolf Wrote:Eventually the growth gets too much for an entity to handle, because the increase in mass can throw off one's own balance. The entity then individualizes itself, which creates a separation from the extra spiritual mass. This sub-entity does have connection to the Entity it separated from.

This is an interesting notion. It would agree with what I understand of psychology. The spiritual mass could be compared to psychic pressure. When there is too much pressure on an individual he differentiates into multiple personalities.

Also we need to create this pressure or momentum before we can differentiate a sub logos for a specific part of our own experience... Different facets of our own personality. And unique in their own way. Sometimes they leave our perception of control meaning we have rogue sub logoi inside. Which lets be honest happens to the best of us. We don't always feel in control of ourselves.

Gemini Wolf Wrote:Individualization slows things down, since it becomes more difficult to balance as the Entity keeps growing. Entity individualizing to sub-Entity is one of the greatest gifts.

And thus the creation of time and the apparent acceleration as our consciousness moves towards 4th.. I had not seen this in that exact way. But it makes much sense to me.

I need to process this. You changed my understanding.

Yes as our awareness grows we start to integrate more then one identity/personality/point of view (4 D + and beyond)

We already do this in limited ways, different identities for different people, we act as sons/daughters to our parents, as lovers to whom we love, as partners towards friends and co workers and so forth, we in fact are not the same facet or person we change according to whom we are interacting with and they do the same in return.

We trough our belief and expectation of ourselves and others bring forth whatever is required according to our vibration.
Not just with people but with animals and the environment and in fact all creation.

(11-19-2010, 06:33 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]I asked because it seemed you're jumping to conclusions unity...

Ra states the sun is a sub logos of a sub logos..
Ra also states the solar system is a sub logos.
This means the sun could be the sub logos that governs the solar system

But it could also mean the sun logos is a sub logos to the solar system logos.

How do you know which one it is?

ra says sun is the physical manifestation of the sub logos.

mind/body/spirit complexes (us, any entity in this solar system) are also named as sublogoi of the logos.

we are told the progress is towards outside and hierarchic, from bigger to lower.

Quote:The following quote should clarify that it is the case in spite of your objections which were literally noted by Ra.

Ra Wrote:28.9 Questioner: Then what you are saying is that the lenticular star system which we call a galaxy that we find ourselves in with approximately 250 billion other suns like our own was created by a single Logos. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

this says that the central sun of this galaxy created all the stars. that removes any potential in-between logoi in between the sun, and the central sun of the galaxy.

in turn, this also removes your proposition that the sun, a sub logos, is a sub logos of some other sub logos, before it is a sub logos of the central sun of the galaxy.

it means, it moves from central sun of the galaxy, to this sub logos, the sun, and then to individual mind/body/spirit complexes.

Quote:[quote]
28.10 Questioner: Since there are many individualized portions of consciousness in this lenticular galaxy, did this Logos then subdivide into more individualization of consciousness to create these consciousnesses?
Ra: I am Ra. You are perceptive. This is also correct although an apparent paradox.

28.11 Questioner: Could you tell me what you mean by an apparent paradox?
Ra: I am Ra. It would seem that if one Logos creates the intelligent energy ways for a large system there would not be the necessity or possibility of the further sub-Logos differentiation. However, within limits, this is precisely the case, and it is perceptive that this has been seen.

Ra spells out here that what you detect as a paradox is in fact real. It would also seem his compliments about being perceptive extend to you.

i didnt perceive this. it was already told in different q/as.

these two q/a say that the individualization from central galactic sun to the individual mind/body/spirit complex is actuality. so, our sun is indeed a sub logos, the creator of this solar system.

Quote:

Unity Wrote:'containing a blueprint' does not mean that you can contain the infinite.

Ra didn't say blueprint, he said "the one creator which is infinity". You are literally contradicting Ra here.

[quote="Ra"]It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity

[/quote]

they say 'as in a holographic picture'. a PICTURE. a picture, is not the scene it was taken from itself.

Quote:

Unity Wrote:because, then there would be no way that you could be finite, and therefore experience freedom, love, or any kind of thing that only been able to come to being with the invention of finity.

Yes there would still be a way. Ra is explaining that. A thing contains the infinite, but still manifests as finite. This is the essence of a hologram.

I understand it is immensely difficult for you to understand this. We've talked about this essential point a lot of times before. You never accepted it before, I don't expect you to do so now. But it is exactly what Ra is saying none the less. It is also not exclusive to the Law of One. This is a fairly common understanding among adepts of various traditions. And yes it seems like a paradox at first.

there is nothing to understand about it, because we now know that, free will, any kind of manifestation, in fact the very 'existence' concept came into being with the invention of the concept FINITY.

meaning, before finity, none of these were in actuality. only with the application of concept of finity, FINITE entities were able to choose, move, have different states, and experience anything.

because, in infinity, there is no state but infinity state. only with finiteness, there can be subsets, and there can be actual choice of those subsets.

so in short,

if you are saying 'i am', then it means you are finite, because you cannot 'be' without being finite. 'being' is something that was invented with the finity.

if you say 'i have free will' its even more solid -> in no state other than finiteness, you can be free, because free will was invented with the finity, AND moreover, free will extends from logos to sublogos in increasing manner.

Quote:

Unity Wrote:'a picture of' does not mean 'itself'.

You left out the most important word.. Hologram.. A fragment of a hologram is itself. We're not talking ordinary pictures here. If you haven't already, spend some time researching holograms. It will be a great advantage in the study of the universe. Since well... It is a hologram.

fragment, means fragment. doesnt matter hologram or something else.

in the case of a hologram, there is some actuality that it is a hologram of. it may be exact replica of it in pattern, but, it cannot repeat it.

but, what is more important,

there is no discussing that concepts 'free will' and 'existence' are only possible with the advent of finity. this is what we are told.

therefore, at any point you acknowledge that you 'are' or you have free will or you feel love or any other kind of emotion or ANYthing, it means, you are still finite.

doesnt change whether you are 'one infinite creator looking at a hologram' or not, as you propose -> to do anything, to be anything, to be free, you have to be finite.

this is what this little gem we uncovered, tells us.

Quote:We are like the oversoul or logos governing many creatures. This incidentally also completely agrees with modern neurology. There is no homunculus. But each part is formed after us. Each part IS us but a different perspective on us... Just like a hologram. Every part of the image created by a hologram is a function of perspective.

more probably you are a fragment of that oversoul that you are merging to, in 7d. which will in turn merge with other entities into higher 'oversouls'.

just like how it was descended down, all the way back up. in hierarchic manner, like it branched out before.

Quote:And thus the creation of time and the apparent acceleration as our consciousness moves towards 4th.. I had not seen this in that exact way. But it makes much sense to me.

time has 'become' with the first application of the concept of 'finite'.

therefore, time transcends all the way up to infinite intelligence. the only concept, that can be free of any kind of time constraints, therefore, is, infinite intelligence.

for anything different than infinite intelligence, therefore, a concept of time has to exist. because, anything that is different than infinite intelligence, will have to be finite in any given amount, in order to 'be' what it is at that point.

(11-19-2010, 07:32 PM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-19-2010, 06:33 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]I asked because it seemed you're jumping to conclusions unity...

Ra states the sun is a sub logos of a sub logos..
Ra also states the solar system is a sub logos.
This means the sun could be the sub logos that governs the solar system

But it could also mean the sun logos is a sub logos to the solar system logos.

How do you know which one it is?

ra says sun is the physical manifestation of the sub logos.

Yes... But like I asked before: Which sub logos? The one of the solar system? Maybe, it could have it's own logos like the earth. So to clarify my objection. I do not object to the notion that the sun is a physical manifestation of a sub logos. I believe that to be the case. I object to your assumption that it is automatically responsible for the manifestation of the solar system. I think the sun's logos is responsible for it's manifestation. And since it is like 99% of the solar system it will be also about 99% the same as the solar system logos. But there is a difference.

Take a binary system. According to your model that solar system would be governed by two individual logoi. Yet in my model they would be two suns manifested in a single system. In my
model they would be in balance from the start. Your model either requires a hidden variable that balances the two suns or it would make binary stars extremely extremely unlikely while they are quite common.

I'm just placing the solar system logos one rank up the ladder from the sun logos, and put it at the level of the earth logos with the understanding that the earth is much smaller even if it is hierarchically the same.

Quote:mind/body/spirit complexes (us, any entity in this solar system) are also named as sublogoi of the logos.

That is correct.

Quote:we are told the progress is towards outside and hierarchic, from bigger to lower.

I realize the progress is from bigger to lower, but there is clearly a feedback. Where the sub logoi influence those logoi higher up in it's hierarchy. Meaning it's not just one way like projected shadows. The shadows are alive and influence that which they are projections from.

Quote:

Quote:The following quote should clarify that it is the case in spite of your objections which were literally noted by Ra.

Ra Wrote:28.9 Questioner: Then what you are saying is that the lenticular star system which we call a galaxy that we find ourselves in with approximately 250 billion other suns like our own was created by a single Logos. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

this says that the central sun of this galaxy created all the stars. that removes any potential in-between logoi in between the sun, and the central sun of the galaxy.

No it does not remove the potential for intermediaries. Those are simply not mentioned.

Quote:in turn, this also removes your proposition that the sun, a sub logos, is a sub logos of some other sub logos, before it is a sub logos of the central sun of the galaxy.

Earlier you said:

Quote:Sun is a manifestation of a sub logos.
....
(insert any number of potential sub logoi here that goes above to the central sun in order)
....
a central galactic sun is a manifestation of a sub logos.

This statement was correct. But you're rejecting it now.

Quote:these two q/a say that the individualization from central galactic sun to the individual mind/body/spirit complex is actuality. so, our sun is indeed a sub logos, the creator of this solar system.

Or it is created as a sub logos to the solar system logos.

You have not explained why it would be the same individual logos. You simply refer to the statement that it is a sub logos of the central sun. But that doesn't mean it is the logos for the entire solar system. I am a sub logos to the central sun. But separated from it by many levels in the hierarchy. Finite I is small compared to it. And I am governed by it in totality. Just like I am governed by the solar system logos completely. However, the assumption that I am therefore governed by the sun logos I think is made too quickly.

Quote:

Quote:

Unity Wrote:'containing a blueprint' does not mean that you can contain the infinite.

Ra didn't say blueprint, he said "the one creator which is infinity". You are literally contradicting Ra here.

Ra Wrote:It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity

they say 'as in a holographic picture'. a PICTURE. a picture, is not the scene it was taken from itself.

Ra says as in a picture. Ra refers to the analogy of a holographic picture here, even if it is not the scene it depicts every part of it is the whole picture. And in analogy, for the universe like a holographic picture every part contains the infinite whole. Modern science is discovering that as we speak with the experiment described in this thread. This is very real and soon it will be accepted scientific knowledge. This isn't just a glitch, an article suggesting gravity was an effect of this holographic nature of the universe a year ago. Space is distorted by the flow of information, not a force generated in some mysterious way by mass. This causes what we perceive as gravity.

Quote:there is nothing to understand about it, because we now know that, free will, any kind of manifestation, in fact the very 'existence' concept came into being with the invention of the concept FINITY.

meaning, before finity, none of these were in actuality. only with the application of concept of finity, FINITE entities were able to choose, move, have different states, and experience anything.

because, in infinity, there is no state but infinity state. only with finiteness, there can be subsets, and there can be actual choice of those subsets.

This would be correct in a classical universe but again you're ignoring the nature of a holographic universe it is both finite in it's parts and infinite in its whole. Every part in a holographic universe is known to contain the whole so every bit of the finite contains the infinite. And therefore the infinite contains choice and manifestation through it's finites without breaking infinity.

Two layers of existence at the same time. They do not contradict but they do interact and cause things that cannot happen in a classical universe. But do in fact happen in ours.

Quote:

Quote:

Unity Wrote:'a picture of' does not mean 'itself'.

You left out the most important word.. Hologram.. A fragment of a hologram is itself. We're not talking ordinary pictures here. If you haven't already, spend some time researching holograms. It will be a great advantage in the study of the universe. Since well... It is a hologram.

fragment, means fragment. doesnt matter hologram or something else.

Yes it does! I think your definition of holograms requires work.

Quote:in the case of a hologram, there is some actuality that it is a hologram of. it may be exact replica of it in pattern, but, it cannot repeat it.

It does exactly that. Since you have no inclination to study holograms I will help you out a bit...

Karl Pribram a neurologist and David Bohm a physicist came to the startling respective conclusions that the brain records information holographically meaning it does not store information in specific places but rather throughout the entire brain. And that the universe does not store information locally, an electron is not an object it is a waveform spread out throughout the entire universe. It only manifests as a particle locally, but as a wave it exists everywhere. These waves can actually manifest in multiple places. And you can see any two electrons as having a single wave form. In fact you can see all of the universe as having a single wave form. The separation exists only after manifestation and is illusory.

In traditional storage of information we can point at locations in space and say what part of the information is stored there. So in a photograph of the Eiffel tower we can literally take a pair of scissors and separate the Eiffel tower from Paris. In a holographic image if we do the same we end up with two images. Both representing the original scene but smaller. This is because specific parts of the information are not stored at specific places on the image. It is stored throughout the image. You cannot therefore separate the Eiffel tower from Paris in the same way.

The brain works the same. You cannot eliminate any memory by removing the part of the brain where it is stored. You'd have to remove the whole brain to do that. If you cut a brain in half you have two almost identical copies of the individual. This is sometimes done to patients with severe debilitating epilepsy. Since the brain is topological and not a true hologram there will be differences. But the holographic principle clearly applies.

The universe is conjectured to also be the same.

Every part of a hologram contains the whole. Any change to any part of the hologram will change everything in it. There is no finiteness other than the illusory finiteness of the information from specific perspectives.

So a fragment of a hologram really is the whole. And this is what Ra means when he stated "It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity"

The pattern you speak off in a hologram is in the whole object. So when a hologram is cut in half there is no such thing as duplication of a pattern. The two fragments of the pattern are exactly the same they are the same patterns. A pattern can be added unto one of the cut off halves if this is done before the separation it will be included in both halves after the separation. If it is done after the separation it will only be present in the treated half but throughout the whole of it.

Your whole line of reasoning falls down before it starts because you do not understand the difference between a holographic universe and a traditional mechanical universe. So you set out in the wrong direction and the clue that this is taking place is your systematic denial of the importance of the word hologram.

It makes all the difference.

Quote:

Quote:We are like the oversoul or logos governing many creatures. This incidentally also completely agrees with modern neurology. There is no homunculus. But each part is formed after us. Each part IS us but a different perspective on us... Just like a hologram. Every part of the image created by a hologram is a function of perspective.

more probably you are a fragment of that oversoul that you are merging to, in 7d. which will in turn merge with other entities into higher 'oversouls'.

We are both the upward ascent from our sub logoi through us to the creator. And the downward descent from the creator through us to the sub logoi. It's all one movement. We're not the tip of creation or the bottom of it, we're everything between the mysteries on both ends.

In his message Ra clarifies that the differentiation of sub logoi creates the universe, (downward) and all in it, and that the integration will allow us to ascend our consciousness up in the densities. (upward) Ra does not focus on this but the tree of life symbol in various mythologies mean exactly this.

Quote:

Quote:And thus the creation of time and the apparent acceleration as our consciousness moves towards 4th.. I had not seen this in that exact way. But it makes much sense to me.

time has 'become' with the first application of the concept of 'finite'.

therefore, time transcends all the way up to infinite intelligence. the only concept, that can be free of any kind of time constraints, therefore, is, infinite intelligence.

I don't quite see why time comes with finiteness. In fact, I believe time to ascend up just a little bit. Individuation, our persona on this earth extends up further. We are time binders, we do not exist in time we create it with our perception. But we are in our nature timeless beings.

Quote:for anything different than infinite intelligence, therefore, a concept of time has to exist. because, anything that is different than infinite intelligence, will have to be finite in any given amount, in order to 'be' what it is at that point.

Why is the finite timebound? You say these things very matter of factly but you do not support those statements. I don't see why they would be true...

Unity, I just wouldn't have these discussions with the people I meet day to day. Thanks

(11-19-2010, 10:13 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Yes... But like I asked before: Which sub logos? The one of the solar system? Maybe, it could have it's own logos like the earth. So to clarify my objection. I do not object to the notion that the sun is a physical manifestation of a sub logos. I believe that to be the case. I object to your assumption that it is automatically responsible for the manifestation of the solar system. I think the sun's logos is responsible for it's manifestation. And since it is like 99% of the solar system it will be also about 99% the same as the solar system logos. But there is a difference.

i dont get why you are dwelling on this.

the 2 q/as consecutively leave no room for intermediaries :

Quote:28.8 Questioner: Let’s take as an example the planet that we are on now and tell me how much of the creation was created by the same Logos that created this planet?

Ra: I am Ra. This planetary Logos is a strong Logos creating approximately 250 billion of your star systems for Its creation. The, shall we say, laws or physical ways of this creation will remain, therefore, constant.

28.9 Questioner: Then what you are saying is that the lenticular star system which we call a galaxy that we find ourselves in with approximately 250 billion other suns like our own was created by a single Logos. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

don asks how much of this creation was created by the same logos that created this planet. ra answers, this planetary logos is a strong logos creating approx. 250 bil of star systems for its creation.

don asks, whether the lenticular star system that WE call a galaxy, the one which we are in with 250 billion other SUNS like OUR OWN was created by a single logos.

ra says, this is correct.

that means are no intermediaries. the logos that created this galaxy, has directly created 250 billion suns, like us, all of which dwell here.

Quote:Take a binary system. According to your model that solar system would be governed by two individual logoi. Yet in my model they would be two suns manifested in a single system. In my
model they would be in balance from the start. Your model either requires a hidden variable that balances the two suns or it would make binary stars extremely extremely unlikely while they are quite common.

I'm just placing the solar system logos one rank up the ladder from the sun logos, and put it at the level of the earth logos with the understanding that the earth is much smaller even if it is hierarchically the same.

i dont know why you are doing this, but according to the above q/as, that has no possibility.

earlier i have proposed the possibility of there being branching logoi myself, but it seems, this is not the case, as i explained above.

there is no mandatory binaryness in this. there is nothing that needs to be balanced, in regard to a sun. a star system may or may not have two suns.

the balance that is needed, seems to be being met by whatever a sun manifests in, whatever you may call it 'dark matter field', or 'darkness of the spirit in physical realm' or whatever. all suns manifest in some dark place that encompasses universe, they expand in it.

Quote:No it does not remove the potential for intermediaries. Those are simply not mentioned.

it remove any potential for intermediaries :

Quote:28.8 Questioner: Let’s take as an example the planet that we are on now and tell me how much of the creation was created by the same Logos that created this planet?

don asks which logos has created this galactic system. ra tells one logos created all star systems (and hence stars) in it.

notice, that logos, creating all these, is STILL a sublogos of the logos that has created itself, AND other sublogoses that has created the other galaxies in this universe. (not even mentioning, the logos that has created the central logos in this universe).

because all of these are sublogoi, and, what is being talked about here, ARE the sublogoi leveling, and the structure, if there were any intermediate sublogoi in between galactic sublogos and the star sublogos, they would have been mentioned.

because, they are talking about SUBLOGOI structure.

Quote:

Quote:in turn, this also removes your proposition that the sun, a sub logos, is a sub logos of some other sub logos, before it is a sub logos of the central sun of the galaxy.

Earlier you said:

Quote:Sun is a manifestation of a sub logos.
....
(insert any number of potential sub logoi here that goes above to the central sun in order)
....
a central galactic sun is a manifestation of a sub logos.

This statement was correct. But you're rejecting it now.

i said it, and im rejecting it now, since that statement was apparently not correct, after careful rereading of the relevant q/as.

Quote:Or it is created as a sub logos to the solar system logos.

apparently it wasnt.

Quote:You have not explained why it would be the same individual logos. You simply refer to the statement that it is a sub logos of the central sun. But that doesn't mean it is the logos for the entire solar system. I am a sub logos to the central sun. But separated from it by many levels in the hierarchy. Finite I is small compared to it. And I am governed by it in totality. Just like I am governed by the solar system logos completely. However, the assumption that I am therefore governed by the sun logos I think is made too quickly.

as it goes down, branching out increases it seems. material says a planetary body doesnt become an entity until the seeking of the mind/body/spirit complexes living on it are of one direction. (possibly ending up as the technical definition of the presence of at least an early 4d or late 3d society complex).

in regard to governance, any logoi in the care of higher sublogoi move within the amenities provided to it by the higher sublogoi. also, as Ra says, logoi always perceive themselves as giving free will to their sublogoi.

since we are all subject to the natural laws being present in this place this sublogos has created/refined, we are indeed governed by it, and anything lower than it that governs our life. this can only change by changing the solar system we are in, it seems.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Ra didn't say blueprint, he said "the one creator which is infinity". You are literally contradicting Ra here.

Ra Wrote:It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity

they say 'as in a holographic picture'. a PICTURE. a picture, is not the scene it was taken from itself.

i dont know how else to put this. the quote is as clear as day. the containment is in the form of AS IN a holographic picture. if, it was plain out REAL containment, not an 'as in' one, they would not need to mention the 'as in a holographic picture' part.

you are willfully ignoring the part of the sentence that modifies the whole meaning. you are basically transplanting your existence, which has only been possible with the discovery of finity, to infinity itself.

Quote:Ra says as in a picture. Ra refers to the analogy of a holographic picture here, even if it is not the scene it depicts every part of it is the whole picture. And in analogy, for the universe like a holographic picture every part contains the infinite whole. Modern science is discovering that as we speak with the experiment described in this thread. This is very real and soon it will be accepted scientific knowledge. This isn't just a glitch, an article suggesting gravity was an effect of this holographic nature of the universe a year ago. Space is distorted by the flow of information, not a force generated in some mysterious way by mass. This causes what we perceive as gravity.

'holographic nature' or 'copy of something holographic' does not make one hologram, the other hologram, OR, make one of the copies equal to the summation of ALL the copies.

EVEN if, as a pattern, or, in reality, every single individual holographic picture was containing the whole, there would STILL be an external hologram containing you, and an external hologram containing it. making any of these holograms, in no way infinity themselves, because they are contained within each other, and one can move from one of them to the other.

in addition, being infinite towards inside, and containing copies of everything that is outside, in your 'infinite' inside, does NOT place what's outside you, inside you. if an observer moved towards outside from your inner world, it would still be able to get OUTSIDE you, and observe you from outside, identifying you, just as you identify yourself.

that is, of course, accepting, extending and overshooting the 'holographic reality' concept, which is new, raw and yet untested.

let me put it this way :

your existence, my existence, all these that's happening here, has only been possible with the discovery of finity.

without finity, there was only infinity. in an undifferentiated state. and in this state, there is no question to infinity being infinity, or being infinite. it doesnt require 'illusion' prefixes, 'but in fact' prefixes, or 'i chose to be so' rationalizations.

infinity, is plain out infinite without any question, condition, identifier, or rationalization.

you are however, existing. you are actually an existing entity, something which is able to identify itself with various affixes and prefixes and conditions.

ALL of these point to the finity. these are only possible by finity. they cannot even be valid otherwise.

Quote:This would be correct in a classical universe but again you're ignoring the nature of a holographic universe it is both finite in it's parts and infinite in its whole. Every part in a holographic universe is known to contain the whole so every bit of the finite contains the infinite. And therefore the infinite contains choice and manifestation through it's finites without breaking infinity.

Two layers of existence at the same time. They do not contradict but they do interact and cause things that cannot happen in a classical universe. But do in fact happen in ours.

excuse me but, even if you apply the new, untested holographic reality concept and overextend it and reinterpret what is said about the infinity, and transplant yourself as infinity, what we are told about finity does not change.

we are told that, ALL these things, including free will, has been possible with the discernment of the concept finity.

there is no 'classicality' to this :

Quote:13.12 Questioner: Can you tell me how intelligent infinity became, shall we say (I’m having difficulty with the language), how intelligent infinity became individualized from itself?

Ra: I am Ra. This is an appropriate question.

The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned to be freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One. Thus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness. Due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity there is no ending to many-ness. The exploration, thus, is free to continue infinitely in an eternal present.

you are infinite intelligence INDIVIDUALIZED from itself. you are NOT infinite intelligence, itself, in its undifferentiated form as infinite intelligence.

you are individualized infinite intelligence, which has only been able to individualize with the invention of the concept finity.

for the otherwise to be true, you need to remove that finity. if you remove that finity however, you will not be what you know as yourself anymore.

as long as you are ANYthing but undifferentiated, unindividualized intelligent infinity, you are NOT intelligent infinity itself, in its unindividualized, infinite form.

Quote:

Quote:fragment, means fragment. doesnt matter hologram or something else.

Yes it does! I think your definition of holograms requires work.

Quote:in the case of a hologram, there is some actuality that it is a hologram of. it may be exact replica of it in pattern, but, it cannot repeat it.

It does exactly that. Since you have no inclination to study holograms I will help you out a bit...

A pattern can be added unto one of the cut off halves if this is done before the separation it will be included in both halves after the separation. If it is done after the separation it will only be present in the treated half but throughout the whole of it.

Your whole line of reasoning falls down before it starts because you do not understand the difference between a holographic universe and a traditional mechanical universe. So you set out in the wrong direction and the clue that this is taking place is your systematic denial of the importance of the word hologram.

It makes all the difference.

excuse me, but you are taking some limited concept and trying to shoot it to infinity.

what we are talking about, is not something at the 'universe' level, or 'reality' level. you cannot take some mechanic that works inside these, and apply it to the scale we are talking about.

we are talking about infinity here. ALL the concepts you speak of, are CONCEPTS, WITHIN infinity. they are ALL finite. because, their existence has only been possible with the discovery of the finite.

this includes the concept 'reality'. if you are talking about any 'reality', then you are talking about finity. because, in infinity, there is nothing, but infinity. 'reality' or 'illusion' or other states, do not apply.

Quote:The pattern you speak off in a hologram is in the whole object. So when a hologram is cut in half there is no such thing as duplication of a pattern.
The two fragments of the pattern are exactly the same they are the same patterns.

and your whole line of reasoning falls down at the point at which you say 'there are two holograms' after cutting in half.

the fact that there are TWO holograms means that there are TWO holograms, meaning that, even if they are copies of one another, they are NOT each other. because, it is a situation with two holograms.

in infinity there cant be a 'two' situation, regardless of how identical two things are.

infinity is a state of 'one', because, there is only one infinity. at the point you attempt to say that there are 'two' infinite holograms, you are not talking about infinity anymore.

this is the place where 'Law of One' comes from, by the way. because there is only one infinity, everything that 'exists' is, concluded to be one.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:And thus the creation of time and the apparent acceleration as our consciousness moves towards 4th.. I had not seen this in that exact way. But it makes much sense to me.

time has 'become' with the first application of the concept of 'finite'.

therefore, time transcends all the way up to infinite intelligence. the only concept, that can be free of any kind of time constraints, therefore, is, infinite intelligence.

I don't quite see why time comes with finiteness. In fact, I believe time to ascend up just a little bit. Individuation, our persona on this earth extends up further. We are time binders, we do not exist in time we create it with our perception. But we are in our nature timeless beings.

Why is the finite timebound? You say these things very matter of factly but you do not support those statements. I don't see why they would be true...

because, time is comparison in between changes in between two situations to each other.

if a something changes its position x units compared to another thing that has changed its position y units compared to any other thing, you say that x units of time passed during the change of y's position.

movement, is at the basis of all kinds of manifestation. entities that exist, move, therefore, change happens. existing realms' compositions and situations change with the movement of their parts. this goes downwards infinitely (probably infinitely).

because, freedom of will (individualization of infinite intelligence and emergence of more than one entity) only been possible with the advent of finity, and time is comparison in between situations of finites, that means that time, will be present in any form, whenever there are finites present.

and time, then, will only end at the point there are no finites, therefore, one single infinity, and therefore no freedom of will, no existence, no manifestation, no entities.

............

in summary :

ALL things that are and all that happened, EXCEPT infinity, has been possible with infinite intelligence discerning the concept of finity, therefore allowing individualization from itself, and therefore there existing actually more than one entity.

since, time is change (in its base, movement of entities compared to each other, that includes changing), that means, as long as at a level there is more than one entity (doesnt matter whether they are holograms or not, whatever they are) that means, there is time, because those entities can be compared to each other.

actually, the mere existence of anything would imply that, there exists one entity individualized from infinite intelligence, and would imply existence of all kinds of things related with existence of more than one entity (time, change etc).

---

the point at which you will truly be infinite then, will be the point at which you cease to exist.

Unity

But isn't that the actual paradox ? ONE is ALL, All are ONE. You are trying to use logic to separate finite from infinite into clear categories when there is no such.
That is what paradox is supposed to mean.
Well obviously from your point of view there clearly is and that to me is the beauty of reality.

(11-21-2010, 08:48 PM)Experience You Wrote: [ -> ]Unity

But isn't that the actual paradox ? ONE is ALL, All are ONE. You are trying to use logic to separate finite from infinite into clear categories when there is no such.
That is what paradox is supposed to mean.
Well obviously from your point of view there clearly is and that to me is the beauty of reality.

it isnt a paradox.

the concept of 'reality', and 'paradox' and non-paradox are ALL concepts that came to being with the invention of finity.

higher than the level there is finity, these are not valid anymore. (despite being valid because they are still part of infinity, with all their opposites).

from the level that there is finity and lower, there are more than one existing entities.

let me put it this way :

the existence of anything other than infinity was able to come into being with the invention of finity. all those that are not entirely infinity, exist in this level or lower.

the 'illusory' or 'unreal' prefixes can only be applied to the level higher than this. ie, the level of infinity. at that level, its only infinity.

for anything to exist, it has to be finite. the concept of existing and reality comes with the concept of finiteness. higher than that level, they are not.

in short REALITY starts with the level of finite, and below. (at whichever point we have the finity concept). above that, all of these is irrelevant, and actually, there has been no change, nothing happening, nothing existing. it is infinity.

so, because of that, nothing can 'exist' and still be infinite in the manner infinity at that level is. for anything other than infinity to 'exist' (actually for the very existence of the concept 'existing'), there has to be the concept of finity about. and when there is, anything that exists, will exist out of that finity. ie -> infinite intelligence individualized from itself.

it doesnt matter how one dubs this if there is ANY individualization, in ANY manner, then that means, that entity EVEN though it is infinite intelligence individualized from itself, is, finite, as far as the concept is discovered.

with that, infinite intelligence, also becomes finite. because, as some have put it into words differently and quite specifically by citing from zen philosophy, the moment you are able to add any adjectives to infinity (zen) it means it is not infinity. (zen).

infinity is infinity. its not intelligent infinity, its not 'holographic' picture, this or that. the only state and situation infinity can be, is infinity itself. this state, cannot be duplicated or transplanted, or identified or written over by anything that is not infinity, regardless of approach. there is one state of infinity. if, anything is not in that state, even if that 'not being' is 'illusory', then it means it is not infinity.

infinite and infinity are two different concepts. the way light travels in a straight line, ra says, was made as such because it represents infinity, due to the unending straight line it travels. it represents infinity, in ONE direction. so, light's traveling is infinite, if you look at it that way.

similarly, one's inner world can also be infinite. it can expand as much as one goes. any holographic picture, can also be infinite. it can expand as much as one goes in.

but, none of these, can be infinity. because, the very existence of all of the above is only possible with the concept 'finite'. and, 'reality' or 'existing' concepts go as far as this finite concept. they are DEPENDENT on that finite concept.

so, if anything is saying 'i am', then it means, they are not infinity, because of the requirement of being finite to enable its existence.

there is no paradox. at the level of infinity, all these lose their meaning and application. even, the finite that is 'logic'. even the finite that is called 'mystery'. even finite that is called 'existing'.

Sorry Unity, there's no point in continuing this with you. You seem to have an aversion to thinking outside the materialistic box.

I don't think you understood Ra. I don't think you've even half understood my objections to your understanding. I am not even sure you're able to see any alternatives.

Unity i understand where you are coming from, i really do, There is only the ONE or Void or emptiness or singularity or infinity that is not even aware. A Black hole.

Now understand this in every "illusory" particle , in every virtual photon there is a black hole, every single spec of creation at its core is a black hole, this is supported by many theories in the physics realm. (that are now discovering this)

What does that mean ?

Everything you call "finite" at its very core it is still that infinity you talk about.

So both at the same time.

The void is everywhere and nowhere it defies conventional logic. The air, you and anything is Void I.e Nothing. The true infinity.

We are always the true infinity no matter what sort of "finite" we identify with.

That is from an observer point of view (especially a third density one) a paradox.

The higher you get to the eye of reality the less sense distinctions and conditions make, so it becomes very clear that there aren't any. Only void and then awareness of light as light

If you like i will find the links to the appropriate physics talking about mini black holes at the core of reality. (meaning everywhere)

(11-22-2010, 05:20 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry Unity, there's no point in continuing this with you. You seem to have an aversion to thinking outside the materialistic box.

I don't think you understood Ra. I don't think you've even half understood my objections to your understanding. I am not even sure you're able to see any alternatives.

i understood everything, however, you are not understanding that you are WANTING things to suit your approach, because you want to keep the thought that you are everything, including things outside yourself. you are transplanting yourself to being everything, despite still being finite, with deferrals to a future point in time. that point havent been reached yet. so, with the concept of reality we have, it is not 'real' yet. it will only be real, at the precise point in time when it becomes 'real', in future.

that is our disagreement here, it has nothing to do with materialism or holograms or anything else.

(11-22-2010, 11:38 AM)Experience You Wrote: [ -> ]The void is everywhere and nowhere it defies conventional logic. The air, you and anything is Void I.e Nothing. The true infinity.

the infinity is not everywhere. first of all it isnt a void, because it is infinity, it has to also contain and be states of existance, at the same time, secondly it isnt 'anywhere', because the concept 'where' is also some entity, existence, within infinity.

Quote:We are always the true infinity no matter what sort of "finite" we identify with.

That is from an observer point of view (especially a third density one) a paradox.

The higher you get to the eye of reality the less sense distinctions and conditions make, so it becomes very clear that there aren't any. Only void and then awareness of light as light

If you like i will find the links to the appropriate physics talking about mini black holes at the core of reality. (meaning everywhere)

there is an important part you are missing.

ra says that, every entity contains replica of INTELLIGENT INFINITY, aka the creator. NOT infinity, itself.

in comparison to infinity, intelligent infinity is also finite, because it is different from infinity, by being intelligent. being intelligent, is not an 'addition', or 'level up'. it is a distortion from the state of infinity. it has an adjective.

so, it is entirely possible for anything that is at the level below infinity or lower, to be replicas of each other, and, contain each other in a 'holographic' sense. but, none of these will be infinity itself.

the very creator, infinite intelligence, the 1st thing below infinity, is itself actually DISCOVERING things, knowing itself, from octave to octave.

there are still things the creator that is being talked about, will discover about itself. and that process, will take infinity, because there would be infinite things to discover about itself before it reaches infinity.

that is also another reason, why the creations wont stop forever, and be present in an eternal now, discovering and learning themselves.

(11-23-2010, 08:50 PM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]there is an important part you are missing.

ra says that, every entity contains replica of INTELLIGENT INFINITY, aka the creator. NOT infinity, itself.

Nonsense, we just discussed the quote, you're already trying to change its meaning.

Ra Wrote:It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity

It's fine if YOU think something else, but don't pretend Ra backs you up on this one....

(11-24-2010, 03:44 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Nonsense, we just discussed the quote, you're already trying to change its meaning.

is it ? it says intelligent infinity there. creator. as in word.

The essence of the quote is the same, of you remove the verbiage."Any portion of any density contains infinity." The extra words do a great job in clarifying, in my opinion."no matter how small" "or illusory pattern" "as in an(sic) holographic picture" "the one Creator which is". None of those four extra descriptional phrases in quotes do anything to change the core meaning of the quote.

(11-24-2010, 01:14 PM)Aaron Wrote: [ -> ]The essence of the quote is the same, of you remove the verbiage."Any portion of any density contains infinity."

The word contains seems to imply that the infinity exists within a limit.

I see the holographic aspect as a fractal, with Infinity as all fractal designs, all everything, without differentiation. If there is a design, then there is differentiation.

(11-24-2010, 01:22 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-24-2010, 01:14 PM)Aaron Wrote: [ -> ]The essence of the quote is the same, of you remove the verbiage."Any portion of any density contains infinity."

The word contains seems to imply that the infinity exists within a limit.

I see the holographic aspect as a fractal, with Infinity as all fractal designs, all everything, without differentiation. If there is a design, then there is differentiation.

Oooooooh... contains. Haha I see. Thank you for clarifying! That reminds me of another Ra concept, "potentiation". To say that we contain infinity means to me that we, along with the rest of the creation, are infinity in potentiation. Of course what we know as we will never "be" infinity, because like you said, if there is a design, there is differentiation. Or, the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. :p lol I think we've all had far too many conversations here around the ineffable natures of the highest concepts. It's fun nonetheless!

(11-24-2010, 01:51 PM)Aaron Wrote: [ -> ]Oooooooh... contains. Haha I see. Thank you for clarifying! That reminds me of another Ra concept, "potentiation". To say that we contain infinity means to me that we, along with the rest of the creation, are infinity in potentiation. Of course what we know as we will never "be" infinity, because like you said, if there is a design, there is differentiation. Or, the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. :p

Exactly!!!

(11-24-2010, 01:51 PM)Aaron Wrote: [ -> ]lol I think we've all had far too many conversations here around the ineffable natures of the highest concepts. It's fun nonetheless!

(11-24-2010, 01:22 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-24-2010, 01:14 PM)Aaron Wrote: [ -> ]The essence of the quote is the same, of you remove the verbiage."Any portion of any density contains infinity."

The word contains seems to imply that the infinity exists within a limit.

Yes, you don't get to see it unless you're a mystic. The comparison is clear, it is a holographic universe. And thus all the holographic truths apply.. And lo and behold, science is starting to back that up. In fact it has been backing that up for a while now if you count string theory...

It's apparent if you look at an apple that you do not see the universe. But if the apple contains the whole it must be all that is.... Apparent : clearly apparent or obvious to the mind or senses. But that doesn't make it true, you apparently have to step beyond your mind and senses to get to the bottom of a thing that contains the mind and senses.

Apple is a perspective on all that is!!! The object is the universe, the subject and object, all the distortions are required for us to see it as an apple. God does not see apples.

All this means... If you change your perspective on the apple you CAN see the universe.... People have done this. Shamanic travelling implies shifting your focus from the ordinary human domain into non ordinary domains. Which can literally catapult you into alternative worlds. They're doing it.. How could this be if they do not contain the universe? If the universe is somehow external to them?

And even Unity knows this notion of separation is nonsensical. He's clarified many times that the infinite is singular, there are no two infinites. And there is not one infinite and a whole lot of finites either. Every finite IS the infinite and only exists due to distortion.

As above so below. These are ancient esoteric truths. Ra wasn't being original.. He explained the same thing to the pharaos a long time ago.. And even then it wasn't the first time the human race touched the concept. These are core lessons for most esoteric traditions. Even Jesus with his mustard seed analogy tried to explain this. The kingdom of God is in all things.

So I strongly recommend against interpreting it as being merely a blueprint. Or something that Ra didn't quite mean the way he literally spoke it.

This is truth, I have seen it, and many who went and had mystical experiences will be the first to tell you that object/subject dissolves... All becomes one... If it doesn't it's not a mystical experience, it's a spiritual experience.

How can all that be if your body does not contain the universe?

This is the Law of One... ALL IS ONE... This isn't the law of many things that we just intellectually philosophically call one... All is genuinely ONE. I think we must guard against mundane, and in this case inappropriate mundane approximations. Just because our mind is hardwired to see objects doesn't mean they actually exist as separate things.

Quote:I see the holographic aspect as a fractal, with Infinity as all fractal designs, all everything, without differentiation. If there is a design, then there is differentiation.

Holograms and fractals are absolutely not the same thing. A fractal is a thing that has infinite complexity but can be described completely in simple terms. The universe is not such a thing. A hologram is a thing that requires the same order of information as it contains detail..

If you see the hologram for what it truly is, it's just a mass of information. It has no meaning without perspective.

The universe is a hologram... It is not a fractal.. It has fractaline qualities, but it is not a fractal. The mundane fact that you can for example break a teacup without breaking all teacups demonstrates this. A plant is a good example of an organism following a fractal like blueprint. But that's what it is, an organism following fractaline information.. It's not a fractal itself. It is however a hologram. Or better, a perspective on one.

A fractal is the old world mechanistic view on the universe. Law supplies order. The hologram is the already ancient holistic view. Holistic... Wholistic... Hmm, I wonder if that means something.

I wasn't talking about the "i am" aka the creator i was talking about infinity itself , which just is and forever will remain unknowable, the core of reality/ the One / the complete absolute remains unaware, it just is, void.

The first distortion is light as light itself, aka awareness then the " I am" ( the creator) and everything that comes from this.

But the ONE remains the ONE, and it is everything there is to be and the true objective reality, which remains unknowable.

Reality is weird for sure and i particularly like it this way, because it allows All that IS to exist.

There is only void yet there is light yet there is creation.

We are already perfect and just fine, in fact there is only ONE and that will be so and is so.

Reality is so unconditional so beyond any condition that it allows all condition and all points of view because of that.

So any journey is futile and meaningless, there is only ONE, there are always only ONE complete Absolute perfection.

So what is life about ? Whatever you want it to be, Your unconditionality makes it so.

I was trying to impress that upon you, not because i disagree with you, only because i could reply and interact.

I am not trying to reach absolute truth, we are already there, Life as i know it is about playing with conditions and distortions.

"I" (personality) don't really exist as an absolute , i am just patterns of light , the real is the ONE, and the light, i am that but not as a personality, the personality exists only as a breath of the ONE.

And that is OK.

it was good expressing this, it felt very good.

You are my reflection and i am yours, we dance in the light of creation and that my friend is VERY good.

Everyone here is so, We are in all of this together, yet only ONE, we know ourselves more and more as light and as ONE and that is our path.
This reminds me of why free will is so paramount in this. The creator is wise, we as the creator are wise. The variety, rainbows of light, we exist as the rainbow.
We dance the dance of eternity , the forever NOW, Always a new light always a new View but always remain ONE.

And so it goes...

(11-24-2010, 02:35 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, you don't get to see it unless you're a mystic. The comparison is clear, it is a holographic universe. And thus all the holographic truths apply.. And lo and behold, science is starting to back that up. In fact it has been backing that up for a while now if you count string theory...

It's apparent if you look at an apple that you do not see the universe. But if the apple contains the whole it must be all that is.... Apparent : clearly apparent or obvious to the mind or senses. But that doesn't make it true, you apparently have to step beyond your mind and senses to get to the bottom of a thing that contains the mind and senses.

Apple is a perspective on all that is!!! The object is the universe, the subject and object, all the distortions are required for us to see it as an apple. God does not see apples.

All this means... If you change your perspective on the apple you CAN see the universe.... People have done this. Shamanic travelling implies shifting your focus from the ordinary human domain into non ordinary domains. Which can literally catapult you into alternative worlds. They're doing it.. How could this be if they do not contain the universe? If the universe is somehow external to them?

And even Unity knows this notion of separation is nonsensical. He's clarified many times that the infinite is singular, there are no two infinites. And there is not one infinite and a whole lot of finites either. Every finite IS the infinite and only exists due to distortion.

As above so below. These are ancient esoteric truths. Ra wasn't being original.. He explained the same thing to the pharaos a long time ago.. And even then it wasn't the first time the human race touched the concept. These are core lessons for most esoteric traditions. Even Jesus with his mustard seed analogy tried to explain this. The kingdom of God is in all things.

So I strongly recommend against interpreting it as being merely a blueprint. Or something that Ra didn't quite mean the way he literally spoke it.

This is truth, I have seen it, and many who went and had mystical experiences will be the first to tell you that object/subject dissolves... All becomes one... If it doesn't it's not a mystical experience, it's a spiritual experience.

How can all that be if your body does not contain the universe?

This is the Law of One... ALL IS ONE... This isn't the law of many things that we just intellectually philosophically call one... All is genuinely ONE. I think we must guard against mundane, and in this case inappropriate mundane approximations. Just because our mind is hardwired to see objects doesn't mean they actually exist as separate things.

Awesome, Ali! I think we're finally getting someplace.

I agree with all that. Here's a question for you though: Can the shaman experience the perspective of the apple, and the perspective of the apple tree, as well as the perspective of you, and of me, and of the wolf in the forest, and the forest itself, and all other perspectives, all at the same time?

(11-24-2010, 02:35 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Holograms and fractals are absolutely not the same thing. A fractal is a thing that has infinite complexity but can be described completely in simple terms. The universe is not such a thing. A hologram is a thing that requires the same order of information as it contains detail..

OK, thanks for the clarification. You have told us that hologram not = fractal and you've told us what a fractal is. Can you now tell us what a hologram is?

(11-24-2010, 03:33 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Awesome, Ali! I think we're finally getting someplace.

I am now officially happy

Quote:I agree with all that. Here's a question for you though: Can the shaman experience the perspective of the apple, and the perspective of the apple tree, as well as the perspective of you, and of me, and of the wolf in the forest, and the forest itself, and all other perspectives, all at the same time?

This is a profound question! It reaches deep into the core. And the answer is no.. The shaman cannot be all those things.

But "the essence that was shaman" can become the apple the tree, you and me and the wolf in the forest the forest and all else.. simultaneously. He'll only stop being a shaman he'll then be the collective of those things he could even include his former self but he would then still not still be his former self.

The simple reason is that shamans perspective defines who he is. Shift it and change it. He cannot directly experience the perspective of another without actually becoming that other. He can experience the perspective of someone looking into another. But that won't mean he has that same perspective...

Now this is a biggie to wrap the mind around. Most people do not have the experience of changing their perspective to the degree shamans do. Can you imagine what it is like to be two entities at the same time? Just like fish cannot imagine that water exists. The baggage we carry, our beliefs stop us from changing. Shamans are trained to let go of those beliefs and take at face value all that they experience. To do this traditionally aspiring Shamen were ritually killed in a variety of ways. Those who could release themselves from their body and individual selves survived as shamen. The pyramid initiations were brutal like this too.. And after this these individuals do extraordinary things.

There's a shaman described in one of Castaneda's books who just came walking from the mountains one day. He didn't originate in this world, he is a shaman who learned to walk between the worlds and when he stumbled into this ours he liked it and set up shop.

You know what they call some modern shamans? Psychonauts. Because they're like astronauts navigating the psychic realms.

You cannot see what I see because you see what you see. If you were to see what I see, you would be me seeing and no longer you. Everything in your universe is relevant to you. Everything in my universe is relevant to me. And just like it is the same infinite whole, whologram, we are the same entity our manifestation distorted in unique ways that are encoded in our cosmic dna or lightbody.

Your true essence is not trapped in this cage because it already sees both through me and through you. Now. One means singular always. You cannot separate a hologram. You can only theoretically bring two together. But since everything was one at the start you can't even do that, you can only reconnect, or recombine, or remember.

And not just that. This essence observing you from me, and me from you, is the exact same essence that is tomorrow looking back on today. if you will do something now or decide not to do something now. IAM observes from all points in the universe at the same time. There is only singular consciousness. An expanded consciousness can perceive where it's tomorrow self is, and the place that it is most clearest is where most of tomorrow self is tomorrow self isn't singular it is distorted like a spectrum. So divination, it works. But also it is not perfect, the unlikely can happen. Certainly if we choose to make it happen.

So in order to become a shapeshifter or psychonaut, a possibility selector, to become something else, we must learn to stop believing we are who we believe we are. Get rid of the anchor. We are not this manifestation, we are the living essence that chose this manifestation.

This is not something we should begin to do. We're all doing it but semi asleep now. This should be something we do consciously. We should awaken. Because that means we will literally be able to navigate the flow of possibility, in effect we'd all gain control over extreme variants of psychic power. That we up until now use subconsciously as our anchor into our lives, even when we don't happen to like our lives.

Quote:

(11-24-2010, 02:35 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Holograms and fractals are absolutely not the same thing. A fractal is a thing that has infinite complexity but can be described completely in simple terms. The universe is not such a thing. A hologram is a thing that requires the same order of information as it contains detail..

OK, thanks for the clarification. You have told us that hologram not = fractal and you've told us what a fractal is. Can you now tell us what a hologram is?

I kinda already did but I will try again.

The hologram was initially taken to mean only the holographic image since thats where we discovered the principle. A holographic image is an image that looks different if you look at it from a different angle, or supply it with light from a different angle. So the angle that the light that bounces off the image and goes towards your eyes is of a different color or intensity than the light that bounces of the exact same spot but under a different angle. You must have seen them, they're magical little things.

Also this neurophysicist Pibram was doing experiments on the human brain. He wanted to discover where memories were stored. He discovered that the brain stores information throughout the brain. No specific part of the brain actually contains the information. Instead it's stored in all parts simultaneously, and not as copies because that would imply a single part holds everything.. You cannot damage memories by cutting out parts of the brain. A lot of unlucky animals clarified this.

I could go even nerdier and explain how the brain uses the exact same formulas (fourier transformations) to decode information that quantum scientists need to use to decode what's going on in the world. The 3d world you see with your eyes is encoded into signals that transfer across the optic nerves in ways that do not resemble the original or any computer signal but that resemble quantum computers.

And a physicist named Bohr came to similar conclusions. Essentially the quantum mechanical universe is a non event without the observer... The perspective Essentially the whole universe is the result of the observer. The observer is the creator. And every thing that he sees must therefore be defined by he himself.

Laszlo and his Buddapest club of physicists are exploring exactly this and writing books about it that the lay person can understand.

The universe is a big blob of information, possibilities. Any thing we can imagine and a lot of things we can't fit snugly inside of it. So the whole, if you could see it all, would be a great screaming event, all things seeming to be in the process of happening at the same time. Kinda like a big bang, enormous, incomprehensible, screaming and ecstatic, this is the mystical experience of the universe. The dance of Shiva. Just above this level, looking from the outside in, it is a non event, everything balances out. It does no longer exist. So every space that is empty probably contains a gazillion universes. It's just ours that we chose to observe with our individualized portion of the central sun.

If you were able to make a slice in this chaos, and apply some order. Then this slice would be what we call a distortion of the whole. It would select some information and filter out other information. All things simultaneously thus becomes distorted into a more individualized here and now and future and past, and possibility. Add more distortions and at every step you build your perspective until you see from a 3d human point of view. And even here perspective is highly flexible considering that almost all of us actually become slightly different people in our different daily contexts.

If you were born as the daughter of Cleopatra, if she even had one , would you be you? Most certainly yes, would you be different? Also most certainly yes... Same happens when you go visit those neighbors you don't really know that well, only on a much smaller scale.

The rest of the universe outside of the here and now is filtered out by your perception, your distortion, but it is still inside of you. If you change perspective you can see different things. If you eliminate perspective as deep diving meditation gurus do they experience this enlightenment that is experience without perspective, a direct vision of the ecstatic.

Channeling requires tuning, this means that two points in this chaotic whole are tuned like pitchforks so the involved entities can momentarily become like one...

Everything fits the holographic model. The classical world view does not allow for many things that do in fact exist in our world.

(11-24-2010, 01:51 PM)Aaron Wrote: [ -> ]Oooooooh... contains. Haha I see. Thank you for clarifying! That reminds me of another Ra concept, "potentiation". To say that we contain infinity means to me that we, along with the rest of the creation, are infinity in potentiation. Of course what we know as we will never "be" infinity, because like you said, if there is a design, there is differentiation. Or, the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. :p lol I think we've all had far too many conversations here around the ineffable natures of the highest concepts. It's fun nonetheless!

yet, you put them into words quite efficiently and eloquently.

(11-24-2010, 06:05 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-24-2010, 03:33 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Awesome, Ali! I think we're finally getting someplace.

I am now officially happy

yippeeee!

(11-24-2010, 06:05 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:I agree with all that. Here's a question for you though: Can the shaman experience the perspective of the apple, and the perspective of the apple tree, as well as the perspective of you, and of me, and of the wolf in the forest, and the forest itself, and all other perspectives, all at the same time?

This is a profound question! It reaches deep into the core. And the answer is no.. The shaman cannot be all those things.

But "the essence that was shaman" can become the apple the tree, you and me and the wolf in the forest the forest and all else.. simultaneously. He'll only stop being a shaman he'll then be the collective of those things he could even include his former self but he would then still not still be his former self.

That is the crux of the 'Infinity' debate. I see Infinity as being ALL those things, simultaneously, including ALL, without any reservation or differentiation or limitation.

Thus, the shaman can experience Infinity from different perspectives, infinitely, in all directions, but only Infinity itself is all of that, all the time, simultaneously, and beyond Time.

The shaman shifts from one reality to another, from one perspective to another, even including a glimpse into Timelessness, Infinity itself. But I don't think the shaman can be said to be Infinity, as in, Infinity undifferentiated, undistorted, though the shaman, and all of us, are the essence of Infinity, as in, can access all of Infinity, as Ra indicated (in my understanding). Why? Because you and I still exist as ourselves, while that shaman is out there being a wolf. As along as you and I are here, there is differentiation/distortion.

The difference is in perspective, that of shifting perspectives, vs. all perspectives at the same time. If the shaman was truly Infinity, without distortion, then you and I wouldn't be here to have this conversation. I am not, in this moment, aware of a shaman looking thru my eyes. That doesn't mean he might not do that sometime. But since, at this point in time, I am aware of myself as self, then that means I am something individuated from a shaman who might be experiencing the essence of Oneness or running as a wolf, or whatever. He is accessing the essence of Infinity, but he isn't all of infinity, because I'm still me right now, and I don't feel him. Thus I am a differentiated spark at the moment. Infinity is both me and that shaman, and all else, at the same time and beyond time.

That's how I see it anyway!

i dont think that this separation, individualization is nonsensical, or unreal.

this separation, individualization, is something that is an aspect of infinity.

infinity, is both singular, and and in infinite numbers, at the same time. they are all aspects, things, concepts, ie 'entities' that are within infinity. they are its characteristics.

and infinite intelligence, is a differentiated portion of infinity, that is discovering infinity. NOT infinity itself. else, it would not be able to do or discover anything.

I think we are splitting hairs here. Do your thing, dance under the moon, get hit by a bus, the ONE remains one.
And no matter the POV.

That is our saga, that is the orchestra of reality , the orgasm of the event horizon, There are many which are ONE, and so it goes...

I am in me and i am in you, I am you but not me. you are you but me as well ? Me and you both and neither ?
Spinning spinning vortex of reality, who is at the center ?!
And so it goes...

From nothing to everything and back and forth, different reflections of the amber flame, spinning spinning spinning.
And so it goes...

Is there meaning to this spinning spinning that spins ?

Yet ONE remains...

(11-24-2010, 06:59 PM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-24-2010, 01:51 PM)Aaron Wrote: [ -> ]Oooooooh... contains. Haha I see. Thank you for clarifying! That reminds me of another Ra concept, "potentiation". To say that we contain infinity means to me that we, along with the rest of the creation, are infinity in potentiation. Of course what we know as we will never "be" infinity, because like you said, if there is a design, there is differentiation. Or, the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. :p lol I think we've all had far too many conversations here around the ineffable natures of the highest concepts. It's fun nonetheless!

yet, you put them into words quite efficiently and eloquently.

Why thank you! ... Wait, what? lol Just kidding... Yes, anything that can be communicated by word or even directly by thought is a distortion of that which we're communicating about. That's what I was trying to express!

(11-24-2010, 03:30 PM)Experience You Wrote: [ -> ]You are my reflection and i am yours, we dance in the light of creation and that my friend is VERY good.

Everyone here is so, We are in all of this together, yet only ONE, we know ourselves more and more as light and as ONE and that is our path.
This reminds me of why free will is so paramount in this. The creator is wise, we as the creator are wise. The variety, rainbows of light, we exist as the rainbow.
We dance the dance of eternity , the forever NOW, Always a new light always a new View but always remain ONE.

And so it goes...

You are a poet, Experience you Beautiful.