19.17

[Jacko]

Hello, I am new to this forum. I want to ask about this session.

19.17 Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates their momentum toward the chosen path of service to self?

Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic.

All these experiences are available. It is free will of each entity which chooses the form of play, the form of pleasure.

What does this mean? Isn't the Law of One an examination of the pervesity of nature?

[Infinite]

Welcome to the forum! In my humble opinion, Ra was talking about to experiment the perversities of nature. Peace, love and light.

[Jacko]

Thank you very much. But if nature has put a veil, then channeling a being from another density is an experiment of the perversities of nature.

[Infinite]

Trying to explain (I don't speak english so good): the sense of the word "nature" in this sentence is the nature of the duality and your functions. Peace, love and light.

[Infinite Unity]

You can label anything as you wish. In this direct sentence. The one above you have bolded is akin to what people usually observe as evil. The perversion of natural laws and functions. There are numerous examples, but you can outline the total as bellicose actions or thoughts.

[Infinite Unity]

To be more direct to your question, Ra is speaking on the prime motive differences between those who enjoy the light and those who enjoy the dark.

[Infinite Unity]

Also the outline is a type of mindset or focus. To see things or create experiences that are perverse in nature. For example enjoying peoples pain.

[Infinite Unity]

Everything has been made complex, it looks or feels one way, however it is actually multi directional and multi functional. Good example is the English language. One word can have. Multiple meanings and can be used to mean different things per context.

[Jade]

In the early creation, there was no veil, and there was no STS. The veil and STS are "perversions of nature", i.e. the natural state of the Creator who is unified, compassionate, etc. One who enjoys "the path which is not" is one who is enjoying the "perversities of nature."

We all engage in perversities of nature, being incarnated, yes, but the Fool being the beginning and the end of the cycle tells me that our spiritual path is to return to the most "natural" state of being - modestly clothed with a tiny bag of belongings.

[APeacefulWarrior]

I honestly think that phrase may just boil down to a questionable choice of wording on Ra's part. He spoke in pure metaphor, for a change, probably because the limitations on his contact method meant he couldn't talk about negative topics in much detail. I'd say "perversion of nature" was simply shorthand for "any activities a strongly positive-polarized being would find highly objectionable."

So I have to disagree with Jade on this. To say that Earth or our lives on it are perversions of nature is to say parts of the Creator are perversions of nature, and I consider that to be an utterly contradictory idea. How could the Creator be a perversion of itself?

I say there's no such real thing as a "perversion of nature" because nature and\or the Creator simply is what it is. That which is possible is therefore permitted because the Creator seeks all possible experiences within itself. It's merely up to each individual entity to decide which forms of experience they will find attractive, and which they will find repulsive. Ultimately all are equally playing out their own roles in the theater of infinity.

After all, both Ra and Q'uo repeatedly emphasize the ultimate perfect unity of creation, and perfection is incompatible with the concept of perversion: "[A]ll things are one, there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator." (4.20)

[rva_jeremy]

Hello, I am new to this forum. I want to ask about this session.

19.17 Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates their momentum toward the chosen path of service to self?

Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic.

All these experiences are available. It is free will of each entity which chooses the form of play, the form of pleasure.

What does this mean? Isn't the Law of One an examination of the pervesity of nature?

Well, Jacko, that's a judgment call that's up to you, I suppose.  I'd also suggest it depends on what you mean by "perversity". 

Here's a few definitions of "perverse":

• wrong or different in a way that others feel is strange or offensive
  
• deliberately deviating from what is regarded as normal, good, or proper
  
• willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary
  
• turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.
  

 
Speaking in the broadest way, the Law of One -- uniquely amongst many spiritual philosophies -- recognizes the negative path as a valid part of the Creation.  In that sense, yes, the Law of One can be seen as encompassing this examination.  But that's a much broader sense than most of us use, since usually when we're discussing "The Law of One" we're talking about the Ra material, which came from a service-to-others entity and not a service-to-self entity.  This acceptance of the negative, service-to-self path as part of the Creation is instrumental to the positive path's embrace of unity.

However, since the negative path emphasizes separation over unity, it would not be correct to characterize the positive path's emphasis on unity as somehow equivalent to, or overlapping with, the negative path's philosophy.  The reason for this is that the consequences of the unity attitude lead to different actions and ways of conceiving of self and other than the negative path.  This is the critical point: that while service-to-others folks accept the service-to-self path as part of the Creation and part of ourselves, we do not choose to limit ourselves to the kinds of separation that is required for the negative philosophy.  It is precisely this limitation that leads to an emphasis on separation of self against self, a lack of acceptance of otherselves as self, and therefore the kinds of bellicose, manipulative, and disrespectful behaviors that one could sometimes call "perverse".  What we identify as negative is a result of a way of conceiving of oneself's relationship to the Creation, and one can accept negative folks without sharing that conception.

In addition to this general point, I think there's something more to be said about the word "perverse".  There is an aspect to the negative path that appears to find great power and satisfaction in rearranging the Creation into harsh, dissonant, grisly, and obscene configurations.  These "perversities" are part of the Creation and part of ourselves.  It is not that service-to-others folks reject these "perverse" configurations as somehow unacceptable.  It is that they do not emphasize them to the exclusion of the rest of Creation.  The positive path uses a "lens" that emphasizes principles of balance, acceptance, and love.  Conversely, the attitudes, behaviors, and philosophies that arise from embracing the "perversities of nature" naturally attend a view of the Creation that emphasizes separateness and rejection of others, and this is what I believe those of Ra are addressing in the passage you excerpted.

Hope that helps!  Great question.

[rva_jeremy]

But if nature has put a veil, then channeling a being from another density is an experiment of the perversities of nature.

I'd be interested in more explication of why channeling strikes you as "perverse".  One could perhaps say that from a social perspective, channeling the discarnate violates popular norms.  But it would be curious if those of Ra held up the constantly changing social mores as a barometer of polarity, wouldn't it?  Is it not more likely they are referring to a more universal standard?

[anagogy]

I've always interpreted it to refer to an orientation towards looking at the world in terms of separation rather than unification. All is one, and perfect, but one can subjectively choose to look at it through the eyes of "perversity", or opposition to nature, and see and interpret it through the lens of separation.

So essentially it boils down to how we, in our illusory egoic separation, choose to relate to the rest of creation. Do we try to see how we are ultimately the same being, or do we try to see how we are different and separate from one another? Looking for reasons to see and feel separation, and finding satisfaction in that, would be "examining the perversities of nature". A perversion is a kind of reversal, so "perversities of nature" would connote  a reversal of that which is natural (i.e. oneness). Oneness is real, and separation is an unreal, interpretation of the real.

It is also important to note, at our level of existence, our orientation, even as STO beings, which is towards oneness is also an unreal interpretation. We are still looking at reality through a lens, or separated perspective of consciousness, and thus both STS and STO perspectives are distorted with regard to actual reality. Both polarities as they gain power and awareness become more acutely conscious of the line in the sand between truth/falsity, but they both wield this awareness in precisely opposite ways: to illuminate (accept/unify), or to deceive (control/separate).

[Jacko]

Thank you.