(04-28-2015, 03:11 PM)anagogy Wrote:(04-23-2015, 12:58 PM)Minyatur Wrote: So what, for you, is included under the umbrella of "real"?
Well, everything that can be experienced is some degree of real, from my perspective. But some things are more real than others things because they are more permanent.
Unity would be the most real, since it is the most permanent. All conscious experiences of unity (which is all that can be), is some measure of distorted/undistorted.
The undistorted unity doesn't disappear when somebody sees an illusion, the perception of it just becomes skewed, warped, or distorted. Beingness remains flawlessly undistorted, regardless. So it is a sliding scale of realness, with unity being the ultimate frame of reference. The illusions are temporary ripples on the surface of the pond (surface of infinity), but the pond isn't going anywhere. All illusions of relativity are relative because they exist only relation to the absolute. The absolute is not dependent on the relative, which is why it isn't relative.
Do you have a different perspective on this matter?
So real to illusion is a spectrum of degrees?
I am just trying to understand what you are thinking. I understand what you are saying in terms of conceptualization but I am confused over how exactly this is supposed to be organized. It seems to me that from what you are saying 'real' or 'illusion' is entirely a matter of perspective if the undistorted unity is always and ever present, it's just a matter of whether or not that is what you are perceiving. However, this becomes more difficult to apply to actual experience because in actual physical experience the 'undistorted unity' and the 'distorted unity' don't have clear or apparent divisions.
Basically, my issue with this train of thought is that it is entirely mental it seems. It looks great in theory and in the mind, but when I start to think about it in reality it doesn't make any sense to me. One of the reasons is because real/illusion appears to me to be a duality and so I don't understand how that can be fundamental to unity which does not have such a differentiation.
That also being said, in the idea of permanence there is impermanence and so again, a duality used to measure unity which doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me there is a great effort to separate "real" from "illusory" but I don't understand it because to me they are really no different. The way people apply these words they use them to instead try to categorize truth, in otherwords what is real is true, what is illusory is false. Yet, the attempt to categorize the truth of unity is, in itself, a flawed approach in my mind, since unity can't be categorized.
I suppose in my mind at the level of infinity 'real' and 'illusory' completely dissolve and there is nothing that is real, unreal, illusory or non-illusory. Hence to suggest that infinity being permanent is 'more real' than finity being impermanent is, in my eyes an assessment of truth. In my mind, however, both permanent and impermanent are real and illusory. In otherwords, they are a mental analysis of the state of something. Therefore the descriptions themselves are only as relevant as the analysis makes them.
I instead do not make this differentiation I suppose. When I discuss the universe, I discuss it as One. I do not see it that there is a level or aspect which is 'more true' or 'more real' than others in actuality, only as far as assessment and reasoning goes one can formulate those descriptions.
For me, I see it that unity is in all things. So in discussing the nature of reality, I have a hard time separating things from that unity. Hence to suggest that say, a napkin is more illusory and finite than say a Buddha, I would disagree. Instead, the limit I am aware of is that of apprehension. The apprehension one has of anything will determine to what degree infinity may be seen in it. I see infinity in a napkin the same as I do in a Buddha.
I believe the process of becoming aware of unity isn't about becoming aware of some 'real' or 'truth' that is there behind everything else, that is greater than everything else. Instead, I believe it is about beginning to see that it is literally everywhere, everything, there is nothing that is not part of that truth. So everything is both permanent and impermanent, everything is real and illusory, and this zero-sum game is the Void voiding Itself.
Hence why I believe the Void/Everything is constantly, always present. It's not a paradox either because the Void is not exclusive to everything, nor is everything exclusive to the Void, in fact they necessitate eachother, they are One and the same.
Quote: Questioner: For general development [of the] reader of this book, could you state some of the practices or exercises to perform to produce an acceleration toward the Law of One?
Ra: I am Ra.
Exercise One. This is the most nearly centered and usable within your illusion complex. The moment contains love. That is the lesson/goal of this illusion or density. The exercise is to consciously seek that love in awareness and understanding distortions. The first attempt is the cornerstone. Upon this choosing rests the remainder of the life-experience of an entity. The second seeking of love within the moment begins the addition. The third seeking powers the second, the fourth powering or doubling the third. As with the previous type of empowerment, there will be some loss of power due to flaws within the seeking in the distortion of insincerity. However, the conscious statement of self to self of the desire to seek love is so central an act of will that, as before, the loss of power due to this friction is inconsequential.
Exercise Two. The universe is one being. When a mind/body/spirit complex views another mind/body/spirit complex, see the Creator. This is an helpful exercise.
Exercise Three. Gaze within a mirror. See the Creator.
Exercise Four. Gaze at the creation which lies about the mind/body/spirit complex of each entity. See the Creator.
Tl;Dr - The Absolute is relative only to itself, and so all relativity is a fundamental of unity.