(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote: Interestingly as a result this suggests that awareness is a distortion, a down-stepped devolution rather than an outgrowth and up-stepped evolution?
Why do you equate distortion with 'down-stepping devolution' as though it were something negative?
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote: Here then are unity100's statements in summation:
1. Infinity was always aware according to unity100, contrary to Ra.
2. The Creator is not Infinity "that became aware"(as explicitly stated by unity100 above in his response) but is rather the creator (with a little "c") contained within Infinity, this contrary to Ra.
3. We as the Creator are not Infinity, this contrary to Ra, this by the simple statement wherein Ra states many times over that "we are the Creator."
4. Awareness, according to unity100, is the first distortion given that awareness was the first movement of Infinity contrary to Ra.
This again is not at all what Ra says. Ra states that the first distortion is free will, not that the first distortion was Intelligent Infinity which became aware which became the creator as a consequence.
If the Creator is Infinity, as Ra states, and we are the Creator, as Ra states, then it follows that we are also Infinity, as Ra also clearly states.
Respectfully, Quantum, I don't think your 'summation' of the many nuances presented by unity100 is accurate.
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:Ra Wrote:"any portion of any density or illusory pattern ... contains the One Creator which is infinity."Monica Wrote:If it's a portion, then it has differentiation...it has distortion....Therefore, the way I interpret it, a portion cannot be the whole.A potion cannot be the whole? This is taken out of context.
And, respectfully, my own statement as well. My use of the word 'whole' was differentiated from the word 'infinity.' As I stated many times, we do indeed contain infinity, as Ra said.
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote: I refer you to the following quotes if I may:
Monica Wrote:"My contention is that the illusion itself IS the limit! It is no less real because it is illusion."Illusion now has become real in the morass of words and deduction. Clearly illusion feels real. But just as certain illusion as illusion is not real.
What do you mean by 'not real?'
If it's 'not real' then are you suggesting it exists outside of infinity?
If infinity contains all, then how can something exist outside of it?
How can anything truly be 'not real?'
Illusion doesn't necessarily mean 'not real.' It can also mean distorted. Most illusion have some sort of basis in reality. Even the seemingly illusory oasis in the desert seen by a person dying of thirst, has its basis in physical reality. There is a logical, physiological explanation as to why he thinks he sees an oasis. A magician's magic trick also has a basis in reality. The reality just isn't what we are led to believe it is.
Again, if illusion isn't real, then is it outside infinity?
What is 'real?' How do we define 'real' in a holographic UniVerse where thoughts are things, and time can be traversed as easily as we now traverse space?
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote: If so, we are now by this suggesting the antithesis of everything we came here to unlearn if we agree that the illusion is real.
Respectfully, you have misunderstood my words. I am not saying that what the illusion shows us is the reality of our being. To say that the illusion itself is real, is not the same as saying the reality depicted by the illusion is real. I am referring to the illusion as an entity unto itself. Illusion exists.
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote: An excellent point to return to "unity100 philosophy" versus "The LOO."
Quantum, we are all doing our best to understand the Law of One. I don't think any one person's views can be accused of being contradictory to the Law of One just because their interpretation of Ra's words may be different from our own.
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote: However to your point that infinity, the One Infinite Creator, is without distortion. It is according to Ra. My response as a reconciliation to these seeming contradictions you posit is is that We may don on our masks of illusion, but we are not our masks. Behind our masks are us.
So, am I understanding you correctly? You are saying that:
1. We are the Creator
2. We are infinity
3. Illusion ('mask') is not real; therefore not part of infinity
4. We can don our mask or take it off
5. Since we are ALL, and we can exclude our masks, then the masks are...not part of ALL?
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote: You make a beautiful poetic reference to this below:
Monica Wrote:I think of illusion as an exquisitely-wrought mask for infinity. It's the carefully-crafted gift that our logos is offering to the Creator so that it may know itself.
This statement was made by βαθμιαίος, not me.
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote: you are you behind your mask in truth separate from your illusion within your mask of illusion.
If we are separate from the mask of illusion, then we aren't infinity, because infinity contains ALL, even the illusion!
I contend that the illusion too is part of infinity. Nothing can be outside infinity.
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote: 1. I am not my mask. I am not illusion.
2. Infinity is not illusion. Infinity is not the mask.
3. Infinity contains and offers illusion as the mask. The mask is finity.
4. Finity is illusion.
5. Ergo, if I am not the mask and not the illusion, I am Infinity. I am the Creator. I am Infinity masked. I am the Creator masked. I am not finite.
6. I am infinite infinity choosing to be finite as a gift to the Creator myself through the mask of illusion.
Well, I guess that pretty much settles it. We're just going to have to agree to disagree!
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote: Attempting to have a dialog as if though there were two separate realities in which one I am the mask and in which the other we all know I am not, limits the truer understanding of what wearing masks are about, less we become lost in said mask wearing.
Curiously, and respectfully, that is precisely how I interpret your assertion that the illusion is not part of infinity. It seems to me that you are creating 2 realities, while my assertion is that infinity is 1 reality; infinity encompasses all and has no divisions, no contradictions...and no exclusions (not even the exclusion of illusion).
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote: Much of this entire dialog which unity 100 created, although interesting enough, is completely contrary to the Ra Material. Period.
Period? As in, case closed? Hmmm...
Well to that I will just say: You are entitled to your opinion!
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote: It is honestly pointed out by unity100 that he disagrees with Ra. Let us not miss this. What are we speaking to then? βαθμιαίος has placed himself into the position of arguing for Ra whilst unity100 is arguing against.
This too is your opinion. The opposite can just as easily be argued. Who is to say who is correct? None of us can authoritatively speak for Ra. We can only offer our own interpretations. This isn't a religion and it cannot be said that a certain member has it 'right' while another member is 'wrong.'