About Social Values-coufused

[Quantum]

Dearest Monica, whatever do you need protection from?

....Why do you hold so tightly to your need for protection from a higher source due to your polarization?

3D Sunset

This thread "About Social Values" has become a most interesting one to be sure. It seems that indeed, as is the case with the entire Ra Material, that an inherent "equal-time/balanced/no greater path choice outcome(s) than the other" is a "built in device mechanism of the game", as it were, in this 3D experience. To digress for a moment, I believe that the inefficiency of either path comes only into real question at the end of 6th density, when at last the left hand path no longer finds it as efficient to go further into negative polarization due to the inefficiency of that choice. In other words, it becomes as though a dead-end, due to the inertia of that path, and thus the only efficient path left is as though a consolidated and merged choice from that point forward by the STS choice-maker into/onto the right hand path. Now, this becomes an altogether different topic and thread which I still wrestle with as a conundrum, in as much as "what happened to the karma"(?), where is the balancing for the 'actions taken' to have polarized so far into the negative, 'sometimes' horrific to others - if just a so-so STS'er, and more oft truly ghastly horrific- if a proficient STS'er , e.g. Genghis Khan, and how does karma then even apply to the negative path? It is inherently understood that he depolarizes if he helps a little old lady cross the street, but what does that karma look like as the balancer , verses the clearer balancing of the STO'er not helping her cross coming back as a little old lady not helped to cross?

Clearly as a presumed child of light it is difficult to see in the dark(and so I don't get it but for a moment [when I do] before losing it again), in as much as would an STS child of dark have equal difficulty navigating and seeing in the light (he don't get it either). As assuredly then, an STS'er potentially would ask the same of where the payoff is in choosing the right hand path. So we come full circle to the balance between the two as being as efficient as the other for the moment.

But, is there a protection mechanism for either path, is the question. Yes, would seem to be the middle answer for both. Would this not stand to reason, given that both paths are equally efficient at this 3D juncture?
It seems that the left hand path has a built in protection of 'distrust of others', and thus he is more on his own to discern, to the point of living and dying by the Axiom "that if it is to be, it's up to me." The right handed path seems also in a sense to have this built in mechanism of protection as well in as much as he is more "led", as it were, by giving way to his faith in those certain somethings outside of himself existing, as opposed to only himself. Both are as presumably efficient as the other, until either is not. In other words, one may seem as having been more efficient in one case, whereas the other less so in that same case, but vice-versa in the next. Thus it appears in one instance that the bad guys almost always seem to prosper and get ahead more easily...until they don't, and are caught to burn in their own flames, verses the good guys almost always seemingly being rewarded and honored for their goodness, until they burn in their naivete for having been "The Fool" (Tarot) for having made 'the choice' to trust in anything outside of himself. Both paths have as much efficiency as the other. Both paths have as much protection as the other. Both paths have as much hardship as the other. Both paths have as much reward as the other. Both paths have as much folly as the other. Both choice-makers on either path are the "Fools" of the Tarot on either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questioner: I am assuming that she (preistess) sits between the different colored columns, with the dark one on her left, to indicate at this position an equal opportunity for the potentiation of the mind to be of the negative or positive nature. Would Ra comment on this?

Ra: I am Ra. Although this is correct it is not as perceptive as the notice that the Priestess, as this figure has been called, sits within a structure in which polarity, symbolized as you correctly noted by the light and dark pillars, is an integral and necessary part. The unfed mind has no polarity just as intelligent infinity has none. The nature of the sub-sub-sub-Logos which offers the third-density experience is one of polarity, not by choice but by careful design.

We perceive an unclear statement. The polarity of Potentiator is there not for the Matrix to choose. It is there for the Matrix to accept as given.

Questioner: The protection here seems to be depicted as being on the right-hand side but not the left. Would this indicate that there is protection for the positive path but not for the negative?

Ra: I am Ra. You perceive correctly an inborn bias offering to the seeing eye and listing ear information concerning the choice of the more efficient polarity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
and then there is:

Ra, Book IV, Session 99

We now speak of that genie, or elemental, or mythic figure, culturally determined, which sends the arrow to the left-hand transformation. This arrow is not the arrow which kills but rather that which, in its own way, protects. Those who choose separation, that being the quality most indicative of the left-hand path, are protected from other-selves by a strength and sharpness equivalent to the degree of transformation which the mind has experienced in the negative sense. Those upon the right-hand path have no such protection against other-selves for upon that path the doughty seeker shall find many mirrors for reflection in each other-self it encounters.
_______________________________________________________________

Both "protections" , as seen above, seem to hold true in a sense for either, but perhaps in differing contexts. The Logos clearly has a bias towards the positive, as we all know, and thus may slightly offer this "without the asking" for those on the positive path, whereas it may be "there for the taking" for those on the negative. Both may ultimately balance the other as far as greater protection offered to either.

.....What Ra meant or didn't mean is really immaterial, all that matters is what we carry in our hearts....

In the interim, surely it is of service to all that it is a given that we are here to challenge ourselves to a higher ground of understanding as regards the LOO , and thus it is a given that the LOO is given to us solely, or shall we agree, most uniquely, by Ra. This then makes EVERYTHING Ra teaches, with respect to same, as "EXTREMELY MATERIAL" , verses what Ra meant/means as immaterial, not withstanding that indeed "all we carry in our hearts is all that matters".

In German there exist two words: 'Ja' (pronounced - ya) for yes, and 'Nein' (pronounced - nine) for no. There exists a third non-word utilized by the clever with tongue in cheek; that word is Jein, (pronounced Yine). Both may be truer, more oft than not, as they are false.

Aufweidersehen for the moment,

Q