oneness

[MarkM]

hey buke, try thinking of it like this:
imagine a big bright lightbulb, hanging from the ceiling, with a big, round lampshade around it like a big sphere, so you can't see the light. now drill a kazillion pinprick sized holes in it, all the way around the surface of the sphere. now as you look at the sphere, you see all these points of light, each one unique in that it shines a beam in a different direction. if you didn't know any better, you'd think there were a kazillion separate, unique little lights all individualized and on their own separate journey. in fact, if you were one of these point of light, you might think the same thing.
until you looked inward...

have fun, mark

[buke80]

according to ra material there is a creator and a creation. otherwise there wouldn't be an expression as the one infinite creator and in the ra material study guide creation is explained.
so isn't there a paradox here? there is a creator and creation but you say that we are different expressions of the creator. i can not understand it exactly.
i want to know if there is a creation or a divison.

[jeremy6d]

according to ra material there is a creator and a creation. otherwise there wouldn't be an expression as the one infinite creator and in the ra material study guide creation is explained.
so isn't there a paradox here? there is a creator and creation but you say that we are different expressions of the creator. i can not understand it exactly.
i want to know if there is a creation or a divison.

of course there's a paradox! ra comes right out and says that the mystery of unity is a paradox. the variety of aspects wrapped up in the universe guarantees that there are infinite number of perspectives from which one can view reality and the creation.

again, all the law of one really suggests is that there is a unified perspective where all is seen as self and self is seen as all. but we choose to view the creation differently. we can even choose a perspective where there are "godheads" which ra calls the "logoi" which represent extremely unified aspects of the creator. but ultimately the most unified perspective is to view all as one. and if all is one, how can there be anything else that would be "created", since that, too, is included in the original "all"?

the problem here, i believe, is that you're looking for "the" model that explains the universe. ra does not offer that, nor do they ever claim to. all they offer is some hierarchical models for looking at the universe from a different, perhaps more unified perspective. they constantly stress that we should focus on models that are helpful to our understanding, that bring us enlightenment and help us realize our potentials, rather than forcing a dogma down our throat and claiming that "this, and only this, is the way it is".

r.a. wilson has a good way of explaining it by using the analogy of a map and the actual land described by the map. the map is not the territory; it merely represents the territory. the words we're using to describe the map are even farther away from the actual terrain. so how can we possibly say what the territory *actually* is?

similarly, our nervous system signals are all the evidence we have about the world out there, but those signals are not the world themselves. we project a model of the world in order to make sense of it. since we control this model, we have the choice to change it. changing the model may yield new insights that we could not have gained before.

actually, that's a good analogy for one opinion of what the creation actually is: an infinite variety of perspectives and models of the creation, ensconced in "personalities" and "entities" that perceive themselves as separate from creation. they all represent the creator experiencing itself in a variety of ways by choosing to ignore certain aspects and stress others. but they're all ultimately part of one "thing", one creation.

[alchemikey]

according to ra material there is a creator and a creation. otherwise there wouldn't be an expression as the one infinite creator and in the ra material study guide creation is explained.
so isn't there a paradox here? there is a creator and creation but you say that we are different expressions of the creator. i can not understand it exactly.
i want to know if there is a creation or a divison.

there is a creator and a creation but they are like 2 sides of one coin...the creator is the creation, the creation is the creator or in other words the creator is within its creation just as the dreamer is within its dream...as i understand it the creator would represent the unmanifest (in the sense that consciousness/awareness is formless and cannot be seen) and the creation would represent the manifest but i feel what you are asking can best be explained in the quote below:

"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."

so based on this quote we are the one intelligent infinity/creator experiencing that exploration of many-ness, we are each a focus of self-awareness that taps into the infinite and are therefore co-creators

hope that helps

peace,
mikey

[inside-up]

hi mikey,

this is why i prefer intelligent infinity to creator or creation. it is more descriptive and less parodoxical. if a creator is infinite and is "all that is" then it's not really a creator because nothing has been created. intelligent infinity is really an explorer of self by self as non-self. it is less confusing (to me) to say "the explorer and its' exploration" than to say "the creator and its' creation."

[soup]

there may be some element of the "density" paradigm
that could interlock within the discussion of creator
and creation. that is, the reproductive act seems a
creative act. two individualized creators co-create
in the act of reproduction which manifests a lifeform
of some density. at birth, the density of the child
may be less than or equal to that of the parents, in
more cases than not.

this may be difficult to generalize - that there may be
some exception in some cases where the offspring is
of higher density than the density of the co-creative
parents. and then there seems the cases where the
child evolves to a higher density than that of the
parents. possibly there is chance of mutation where
a baby is born of high density.

in this materialistic world, there seem many examples
of creators manifesting creations of density lower than
the density of its creator. but what about greater?
the trend of "indigo" children may be closer to the
threshold in this regard - the possibility of offspring
embodying higher density than that of the parents.

my impression is that typically creations are of same
or lower density to that of its creator's density and
that evolution to higher density comes through life
experience of some form or another, with differing
degrees of evolutionary rates. here one might argue
that there is a human potential density greater
than what most humans attain to.

if that pattern holds, it would imply the initial creator
of the human lifeform is of equal to or greater density
than the density that most humans attain to by their
life experience.

then again that seems a separative perspective and
within the higher densities the illusions of separation
dissolves. here mother and child are one and the
same. alternatively, from a separative perspective
a human lifeform may appear of equal to or lower
density separate than that of its creator. though
expanding to include the creator then the density
of the same human lifeform seems a lower density
facet of a higher density unitive being.

here a metaphor might be useful. as if the hair cells
of a person's head are of lower density than the brain
cells inside the head. a human lifeform may be as if
analogous to a piece of hair upon a greater being.

note, the existence of this greater being may not be
visible to the human lifeform. does the hair cell see
the brain cell? the reality of this greater being is
manifested inter dimensionally beyond an obvious
physical context within which illusions of separation
are promoted by way of human sensory nature and
its related limitations.

[buke80]

in christianity i think we are considered as parts of god, too. am i right?

[soup]

my impression is that jesus christ went to heaven
and sits at the right hand of god, in the christian
paradigm. i'd hesitate to suggest that satan or
mary sits at the left hand of god, so i'll propose
that possibly the seat is open and we all share it
once in a while.

[buke80]

are we human beings or god?
are we gods experiencing humanity?
can someone answer this?

[jeremy6d]

in christianity i think we are considered as parts of god, too. am i right?

heh. which school of christianity? there are so many to choose from.

i think *most* christians don't think about it much, and therefore default to an understanding of themselves as "creations" of god separate from "him".