+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Community (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: Olio (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Oneness (/showthread.php?tid=12309)
Oneness - Night Owl - 12-29-2015
I noticed there seem to be two different perspectives about oneness on the forum. It flies under the radar but it creates much distortions. I feel sometimes if it would have been discussed before other discussions it would have eased comprehension between members. Some seem to understand oneness as a unified duality while others seems to see it more as a single infinite multiplicity. I tend to see it more as the second one.
For me, even though a unified duality can be seen as a positive thing because of unity being the goal to reach, it still implies a division or some kind of hierarchical level that must be reached to be unified as if everything isn't already unified. This doesn't make sense to me as it implies everything isn't already one. It leaves too much room for right/wrong, correctness/incorrectness and things like unjustified or meaningless experiences. I feel this also doesn't make you responsible for your actions. It justifies playing the victim because in this version everyone can have his/her version of what creates unity according to one's ego.
The single infinite multiplicity rather sees everything as already one single thing that explores multiple facets of itself but yet is still one single thing. To me this makes much more sense because it implies everything is already interconnected to the one and everything has a reason and can be explained positively or related to oneness already. In this version there can be no unjustified suffering. This approach seems to take more responsability for it's action and doesn't have room for some kind of victim state. I feel it is more resonant with the LOO.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
RE: Oneness - Jade - 12-29-2015
I see your point, but can't it be both?
RE: Oneness - Night Owl - 12-29-2015
Well unified duality seems kind of utopic. I think the universe has so far proved it is not happening. Can it happen? Well I certainly am not filling the right shoes to tell.
RE: Oneness - Jade - 12-29-2015
I think we are an infinite single multiplicity that has devised a very, very specific and articulated system whereupon we are allowed to participate in the experience of discovering ourselves as a unified duality. Of course, 3D is not about unification at all - in fact, it is specifically about separation, the separation of the paths. But, to experience this game board the universe has set up, one must choose one of the paths to experience the path to unified duality.
I think the ultimate goal is to the reunify as the single multiplicity, and then separate again. But to deny the existence of a duality is to deny the whole reason we (as a unified being) have set up this Creation to explore ourselves as each other, and to incarnate in 3rd density as we have. So, I think the goal of our single infinite multiplicity is the illusion of duality, which has been accomplished quite successfully I think.
RE: Oneness - Aion - 12-29-2015
I don't see the difference, you've just used two sets of words to describe the same thing.
I do, however, believe I know what you are trying to point out. I would say that the difference is a matter of perspective from the direction of perceiving. In other words, it is like if you have a tree and there is one person on the ground and then there is someone in the tree. Though the tree is common, how it will be perceived, especially in relation to other things will be markedly different even if it is also incredibly similar.
Thus, I would say that it is 'both' and 'neither' of these while actually being something which defies description in words. Perhaps it could be seen that one sees the Microcosm in the Macrocosm, whereas the other is focused on seeing the Macrocosm in the Microcosm.
RE: Oneness - Night Owl - 12-29-2015
But it seems like united duality leaves room for freewill infringement but Ra said that this is not possible. The question is: Can it be someone's freewill to have his/her freewill infringed?
RE: Oneness - Jade - 12-29-2015
(12-29-2015, 05:21 PM)matrix_drumr Wrote: The question is: Can it be someone's freewill to have his/her freewill infringed?
Yes.
RE: Oneness - Night Owl - 12-29-2015
I agree this is really similar and it is hard to describe. What I see as problematic when interacting with others is when one's perspective of oneness imply not already being one.
RE: Oneness - Night Owl - 12-29-2015
(12-29-2015, 05:20 PM)Aion Wrote: I don't see the difference, you've just used two sets of words to describe the same thing.
I do, however, believe I know what you are trying to point out. I would say that the difference is a matter of perspective from the direction of perceiving. In other words, it is like if you have a tree and there is one person on the ground and then there is someone in the tree. Though the tree is common, how it will be perceived, especially in relation to other things will be markedly different even if it is also incredibly similar.
Thus, I would say that it is 'both' and 'neither' of these while actually being something which defies description in words. Perhaps it could be seen that one sees the Microcosm in the Macrocosm, whereas the other is focused on seeing the Macrocosm in the Microcosm.
Where are we standing then? Are we macrosm or microcosm?
RE: Oneness - Night Owl - 12-29-2015
(12-29-2015, 05:24 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: Yes.
Can this happen even out of the veil?
RE: Oneness - Aion - 12-29-2015
Where does Ra say that?
Well, perhaps we can consider it from the perspective of action. Who's free will is 'first'? If they are simultaneous, then how can one invite the other?
This is why Ra stresses the facet of deception and falsehood when it comes to infringement. The question is why would someone use their free will to have that free will be infringed? I can imagine some entities are perhaps quirky enough to explore experience that way but it doesn't appear to be sensical for it to be the norm. Perhaps that deception is agreed to on some level, but that would also mean on some level it is seen for what it is, as deception.
I think that the question is actually self-defeating. Infringement in itself suggests an interference with free will. The question is, to me, how can free will cause another free will to be not free if the will itself is the same will, that of the Creator?
However, I do not bias the Creator to only one side, to only the Light. I see the first phase of deception being self-deception. So I might offer that it is CONFUSION which causes entities to be deceived by themselves which opens them to deception from others who have deceived themselves.
The problem is that there are dimensional variances for free will. So if someone is not aware of their will to be infringed and someone infringes anyways it still sounds as infringement because of the gap in awareness.
RE: Oneness - Jade - 12-29-2015
(12-29-2015, 05:25 PM)matrix_drumr Wrote: I agree this is really similar and it is hard to describe. What I see as problematic when interacting with others is when one's perspective of oneness imply not already being one.
That is why my point was that what we are doing now is experiencing duality as a Oneness. Oneness is inherent, duality is the game that Oneness is playing. To say that others ruin the game because they have not found the Oneness... well, they have just yet to reach the higher levels of the game.
RE: Oneness - Aion - 12-29-2015
(12-29-2015, 05:28 PM)matrix_drumr Wrote:(12-29-2015, 05:20 PM)Aion Wrote: I don't see the difference, you've just used two sets of words to describe the same thing.
I do, however, believe I know what you are trying to point out. I would say that the difference is a matter of perspective from the direction of perceiving. In other words, it is like if you have a tree and there is one person on the ground and then there is someone in the tree. Though the tree is common, how it will be perceived, especially in relation to other things will be markedly different even if it is also incredibly similar.
Thus, I would say that it is 'both' and 'neither' of these while actually being something which defies description in words. Perhaps it could be seen that one sees the Microcosm in the Macrocosm, whereas the other is focused on seeing the Macrocosm in the Microcosm.
Where are we standing then? Are we macrosm or microcosm?
We are at a fulcrum between the two and hence the two ways of viewing.
RE: Oneness - Night Owl - 12-29-2015
My apologies if I sounded like they ruin the game. It was more meant to say this is creating distortions between people that did not seem to be intended at first.
RE: Oneness - Night Owl - 12-29-2015
(12-29-2015, 05:32 PM)Aion Wrote: Where does Ra say that?
Well, perhaps we can consider it from the perspective of action. Who's free will is 'first'? If they are simultaneous, then how can one invite the other?
This is why Ra stresses the facet of deception and falsehood when it comes to infringement. The question is why would someone use their free will to have that free will be infringed? I can imagine some entities are perhaps quirky enough to explore experience that way but it doesn't appear to be sensical for it to be the norm. Perhaps that deception is agreed to on some level, but that would also mean on some level it is seen for what it is, as deception.
I think that the question is actually self-defeating. Infringement in itself suggests an interference with free will. The question is, to me, how can free will cause another free will to be not free if the will itself is the same will, that of the Creator?
However, I do not bias the Creator to only one side, to only the Light. I see the first phase of deception being self-deception. So I might offer that it is CONFUSION which causes entities to be deceived by themselves which opens them to deception from others who have deceived themselves.
The problem is that there are dimensional variances for free will. So if someone is not aware of their will to be infringed and someone infringes anyways it still sounds as infringement because of the gap in awareness.
This is exactly where my thoughts were going. But what would be the purpose of choosing to experience one's own freewil being infringed?
RE: Oneness - Aion - 12-29-2015
(12-29-2015, 05:39 PM)matrix_drumr Wrote:(12-29-2015, 05:32 PM)Aion Wrote: Where does Ra say that?
Well, perhaps we can consider it from the perspective of action. Who's free will is 'first'? If they are simultaneous, then how can one invite the other?
This is why Ra stresses the facet of deception and falsehood when it comes to infringement. The question is why would someone use their free will to have that free will be infringed? I can imagine some entities are perhaps quirky enough to explore experience that way but it doesn't appear to be sensical for it to be the norm. Perhaps that deception is agreed to on some level, but that would also mean on some level it is seen for what it is, as deception.
I think that the question is actually self-defeating. Infringement in itself suggests an interference with free will. The question is, to me, how can free will cause another free will to be not free if the will itself is the same will, that of the Creator?
However, I do not bias the Creator to only one side, to only the Light. I see the first phase of deception being self-deception. So I might offer that it is CONFUSION which causes entities to be deceived by themselves which opens them to deception from others who have deceived themselves.
The problem is that there are dimensional variances for free will. So if someone is not aware of their will to be infringed and someone infringes anyways it still sounds as infringement because of the gap in awareness.
This is exactly where my thoughts were going. But what would be the purpose of choosing to experience one's own freewil being infringed?
I think that 'choosing' can only be taken so far. You might view it a little differently as being more like a matter of interaction. It is that different parts of the Creator's will interact with eachother in different ways. Some are dissonant, some are consonant. What we see as infringement and such conflict are simply dissonant portions of the Creator will interacting.
RE: Oneness - Jade - 12-29-2015
(12-29-2015, 05:30 PM)matrix_drumr Wrote:(12-29-2015, 05:24 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: Yes.
Can this happen even out of the veil?
This is a good question and no, I don't think so. The veil is what facilitates free will. Without the veil, no STS/STO dichotomy, no illusion of choice/duality on such a heavy scale. So, there is no "free" will without the veil, there is just one will - the will of the single One. I think may be what you are thinking of as more of the "unified duality" - experience of Creation before the veil - no STS, so "utopic", but also stagnant. The veil/free will just added a level of difficulty so that one would be encouraged to better their situation, ie polarize and ascend the ladder of light to the higher densities towards unification.
Quote:82.28 Ra: I am Ra. You begin to grasp the situation. Let us continue the metaphor of the schooling but consider the scholar as being an entity in your younger years of the schooling process. The entity is fed, clothed, and protected regardless of whether or not the schoolwork is accomplished. Therefore, the entity does not do the homework but rather enjoys playtime, mealtime, and vacation. It is not until there is a reason to wish to excel that most entities will attempt to excel.
RE: Oneness - Jade - 12-29-2015
(12-29-2015, 05:39 PM)matrix_drumr Wrote: This is exactly where my thoughts were going. But what would be the purpose of choosing to experience one's own freewil being infringed?
It's different, it's an experience. It's karma. There are lots of reasons.
One way I think of free will infringement that is obvious, and forgive me if I'm being crass, but I think of people who are really into strict S&M relations. These are negative sexual energy transfers and involve free will infringement, but those who enjoy them experience what they might refer to as the peak of of physical and psychological pleasure during the experience. Why? I can't say from experience, but what I speculate is that within the infinity of unity, there exists all of the negative (infringing) along with the positive, and to the Creator, all Experience is pleasure. And there are those who have to experience the "bad" parts of infinity so, why not program oneself to enjoy it?
RE: Oneness - Aion - 12-29-2015
I think that the Creator expresses all experience. More as I go on I see that although the core of infinity, the Creator itself is neutral but it experiences both pleasure and pain, creation and destruction. I genuinely believe certain things are supposed to be unpleasant. Not in a way that the Creator find pleasure in it, but rather the Creator experiencing all the downsides of unpleasantry and the upsides of pleasantness. I think the Creator itself is completely unattached so it views no experiment as good or bad. Rather, it seeks a path of least resistance. It explores whatever is right there. So I see it that the Creator embraces pain just as much as pleasure.
However, this raises a big question of distortion. Why have things become separate? It's not the veil because there were distortions before the veil so obviously distortion is more fundamental than just being an aspect of 3D free will, especially if Ra calls free will the 'first distortion'. I have looked and it doesn't seem there is anywhere in the Ra Material where Ra clearly defines what they mean by 'distortion'. If anyone knows of any parts, let me know.
So far my best take is that it means that it is a 'twisting' of the fundamental truth and for every distortion it is another 'twist'. Thus, every action begins with that first twist.
RE: Oneness - Jeremy - 12-29-2015
(12-29-2015, 05:54 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote:(12-29-2015, 05:39 PM)matrix_drumr Wrote: This is exactly where my thoughts were going. But what would be the purpose of choosing to experience one's own freewil being infringed?
It's different, it's an experience. It's karma. There are lots of reasons.
One way I think of free will infringement that is obvious, and forgive me if I'm being crass, but I think of people who are really into strict S&M relations. These are negative sexual energy transfers and involve free will infringement, but those who enjoy them experience what they might refer to as the peak of of physical and psychological pleasure during the experience. Why? I can't say from experience, but what I speculate is that within the infinity of unity, there exists all of the negative (infringing) along with the positive, and to the Creator, all Experience is pleasure. And there are those who have to experience the "bad" parts of infinity so, why not program oneself to enjoy it?
Nope, not what S & M is about. It may seem like that on the surface but the submissive one is the one that truly has control. They control what is being done to then and they have the power to say stop via safe words. A true S & M relationship is based upon trust that one will always follow the rules and guidelines set out before such occurs.
RE: Oneness - Aion - 12-29-2015
That is in ideal situations, yes, but I have definitely seen situations where that is not the case, personally. I think that just like any other relationship it can be abused.
RE: Oneness - Jeremy - 12-29-2015
(12-29-2015, 06:53 PM)Aion Wrote: That is in ideal situations, yes, but I have definitely seen situations where that is not the case, personally. I think that just like any other relationship it can be abused.
Oh I agree. There is definitely some disturbing stuff done to people but I just wanted to highlight the flaw in jades assumption that lumped all such relationships as negative energy sexual transfers.
It definitely may not be green ray expression by any stretch lol but it surely has its appeal to some on a primitive and carnal level.
RE: Oneness - AnthroHeart - 12-29-2015
I think you have to be a yogi or an ascended master to experience oneness or unity.
RE: Oneness - spero - 12-29-2015
the duality of unity would be in the relationship between intelligent infinity which is the like a pool of untapped potential that is the OIC and intelligent energy/love/foci/co-creators/indigobody which are the particular individualised portions or active/kinetic representation of the creator and which are inherently part of intelligent infinity since they draw their being from that reservoir.
Quote:Ra: I am Ra. This will be the last full query of this session of working.
The indigo body may be seen to be an analog for intelligent energy. It is, in microcosm, the Logos. The intelligent energy of the mind/body/spirit complex totality draws its existence from intelligent infinity or the Creator. This Creator is to be understood, both in macrocosm and microcosm, to have, as we have said, two natures: the unpotentiated infinity which is intelligent; this is all that there is.
Free will has potentiated, both the Creator of us all and our selves as co-Creators with intelligent infinity which has will. This will may be drawn upon by the indigo or form-making body and its wisdom used to then choose the appropriate locus and type of experience which this co-Creator or sub-sub-Logos you call so carelessly a person will take.
the imperative for the sub-sub-logoi to progress through the densities and return to the OIC is a little mystifying tho tbh. if all is the creator and all is perfectly acceptable at the level it exists then why is there an imperative for increased efficiency by the sub-logoi and logoi. why were the logoi dissatisfied with the long time spent in 3D such that they implemented the veil. why is efficiency so important to them? i have my theories lol but they are all crackpot. its this imperative for efficiency in progression and harvest from which arises the concepts u find distressing. that a low harvest is a bad thing? that there is a right/wrong, correct/incorrect.
Edit:
to add to this there seems to be a 'use it or lose it' attitude built into the creation. a prime example would be the below
Quote:20.17 Questioner: I’m assuming at the start of one of these cycles there could have been either a positive polarization that would generally occur over the 25 [thousand] years or a negative polarization. Is the reason for the negative polarization and the shortening of the cycle the influx of entities from Mars who had already polarized somewhat negatively?
Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. There was not a strong negative polarization due to this influx. The lessening of the life span was due primarily to the lack of the building up of positive orientation. When there is no progress those conditions which grant progress are gradually lost. This is one of the difficulties of remaining unpolarized. The chances, shall we say, of progress become steadily less.
RE: Oneness - AnthroHeart - 12-29-2015
Yay to short life spans.
RE: Oneness - Jade - 12-30-2015
(12-29-2015, 06:56 PM)Jeremy Wrote:(12-29-2015, 06:53 PM)Aion Wrote: That is in ideal situations, yes, but I have definitely seen situations where that is not the case, personally. I think that just like any other relationship it can be abused.
Oh I agree. There is definitely some disturbing stuff done to people but I just wanted to highlight the flaw in jades assumption that lumped all such relationships as negative energy sexual transfers.
It definitely may not be green ray expression by any stretch lol but it surely has its appeal to some on a primitive and carnal level.
Hi Jeremy, I get what you are saying, I'm not saying that S&M is a bad experience for those involved or that two people who love each other can't engage in respectful, loving scenarios.
I'm just using Ra's definition of sexual energy transfers and that, when one is desiring possession or to be possessed, that a negative transfer of energy occurs. My personal interpretation per Ra is that, if there isn't green-ray energy involved, that's it's a negative sexual energy transfer.
Quote:The yellow ray is a focal and very powerful ray and concerns the entity in relation to, shall we say, groups, societies, or large numbers of mind/body/spirit complexes. This orange — we correct ourselves — this yellow-ray vibration is at the heart of bellicose actions in which one group of entities feel the necessity and right of dominating other groups of entities and bending their wills to the wills of the masters. The negative path, as you would call it, uses a combination of the yellow ray and the orange ray in its polarization patterns. These rays, used in a dedicated fashion, will bring about a contact with intelligent infinity. The usual nature of sexual interaction, if one is yellow or orange in primary vibratory patterns, is one of blockage and then insatiable hunger due to the blockage. When there are two selves vibrating in this area the potential for polarization through the sexual interaction is begun, one entity experiencing the pleasure of humiliation and slavery or bondage, the other experiencing the pleasure of mastery and control over another entity. In this way a sexual energy transfer of a negative polarity is experienced.
RE: Oneness - Night Owl - 12-30-2015
(12-29-2015, 06:47 PM)Aion Wrote: However, this raises a big question of distortion. Why have things become separate? It's not the veil because there were distortions before the veil so obviously distortion is more fundamental than just being an aspect of 3D free will, especially if Ra calls free will the 'first distortion'. I have looked and it doesn't seem there is anywhere in the Ra Material where Ra clearly defines what they mean by 'distortion'. If anyone knows of any parts, let me know.
So far my best take is that it means that it is a 'twisting' of the fundamental truth and for every distortion it is another 'twist'. Thus, every action begins with that first twist.
I tend to picture distortions as a twist like you do. But I would associate them with love. A good way of undistorting yourself is realizing that your distortions are love or done out of love and then it can be undistorted. Even to detect them you got to love yourself enough to work on yourself. So I think a distortion is something that becomes the basis for an experience that isn't obviously love but still is. When you find the love within there is no more distortions. I don't know if that can always be applied though.
RE: Oneness - Night Owl - 12-30-2015
(12-29-2015, 09:09 PM)spero Wrote: the imperative for the sub-sub-logoi to progress through the densities and return to the OIC is a little mystifying tho tbh. if all is the creator and all is perfectly acceptable at the level it exists then why is there an imperative for increased efficiency by the sub-logoi and logoi. why were the logoi dissatisfied with the long time spent in 3D such that they implemented the veil. why is efficiency so important to them? i have my theories lol but they are all crackpot. its this imperative for efficiency in progression and harvest from which arises the concepts u find distressing. that a low harvest is a bad thing? that there is a right/wrong, correct/incorrect.
The question is do they really have attachment to a certain level of harvest or is that our interpretation?
RE: Oneness - Night Owl - 12-30-2015
(12-29-2015, 05:54 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: One way I think of free will infringement that is obvious, and forgive me if I'm being crass, but I think of people who are really into strict S&M relations. These are negative sexual energy transfers and involve free will infringement, but those who enjoy them experience what they might refer to as the peak of of physical and psychological pleasure during the experience. Why? I can't say from experience, but what I speculate is that within the infinity of unity, there exists all of the negative (infringing) along with the positive, and to the Creator, all Experience is pleasure. And there are those who have to experience the "bad" parts of infinity so, why not program oneself to enjoy it?
If those people have guidelines and rules is this still freewill infringement? I would not think so
RE: Oneness - Night Owl - 12-30-2015
(12-29-2015, 09:09 PM)spero Wrote: to add to this there seems to be a 'use it or lose it' attitude built into the creation. a prime example would be the below
Although it seems true, it seems awkward. How is something really lost?