08-08-2016, 09:38 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-08-2016, 11:09 AM by rva_jeremy.)
Hey Chandlersdad, thanks for posting.
I'm pretty much in your camp on all points, and I've studied this material for 16 years. Unless there are major issues with the fidelity of the contact at these two junctures, Ra is just flat out wrong in my opinion--or at best, not usefully correct. Full stop, end of story. Ra's comments on homosexuals constitute the low point of the contact record for me; I won't pull punches.
In fact I have a close gay friend whom I'm introducing to this material, and I'm absolutely dreading the point when/if he stumbles on these passages in the Ra material. I think you should do as you see fit with respect to whether or not you accept the totality of the Ra contact, but I would just point out that no Confederation contact I've ever read has ever claimed infallibility. When you think about the gravity of the topics Ra discusses, this foray into near-homophobia is not simply disturbing but kind of bizarre! The sad thing is that this is an area where students of the Law of One could clearly use some guidance when it comes to understanding sexual polarity in finer and more nuanced ways.
Now, all that said, I think we might look at the technical details of Ra's comments. The auric infringement thing always struck me as more about sexual stimulation in general than narrowly homoerotic stimulation. Ra was simply being asked to comment on homosexuals at the time, but IMHO their reasoning could apply to anybody. I think close quarters has the ability to bring out confusion of all sorts, but let's always remember that this confusion is born of social norms and stigmas that baffle the free flow of love and energy. It is not a problem with the individual himself who is still absolutely acceptable and the Creator in every way. Let's keep in mind that catalyst is often borne of yellow ray issues with the society, but it is inherently subjective and knows no political correctness.
One more thing about auric infringement that I have mixed feelings on: if you look at the question it's actually not about why homosexuals have their orientation but instead about Don's perception of the increasing numbers at that time. Who knows, maybe auric infringement plays some sort of role on the margins there, but the idea that anybody would accept this as a sufficient single explanation is laughable. Maybe it activates something somebody remembers from a past life, I don't know. But I also feel like Ra might have been scrambling to answer a bad question with (as often happened in the contact) an overly generalized answer.
I'm actually super impressed at those of you who think Ra's claim that having a majority of past lives of the opposite sex can cause homosexuality is not offensive. It shows tremendous wisdom to be open-minded towards the grand mystery of our past lives. Ra might be right, might be wrong… who here thinks it matters? The important point is that our experience of sex seems to be a great generator of catalyst, and the thing we need to think about is not why we're gay, straight, trans, queer, etc. but how to find the love in any of those experiences.
The point on early imprinting strikes me as much more balanced, personally, precisely because it's so utterly subjective. I don't think Ra's point is that if your first kiss was with a girl, you're stuck kissing girls for the rest of your life. I think the point was more that one's personal significator plays a tremendous role in arranging our reactions to and feelings about things in mysterious ways. Who knows why we're attracted to what we're attracted to, and how the mesh of social sexual norms, energetic blockages and overactivations, childhood experiences of vulnerability and novelty, etc. all come together? This is why it's best to stay on non-transient, universally oriented topics when speaking with the sixth density.
I don't discount the possibility that Ra's comments are colored by 80's thinking and norms, but I think it's a poor excuse for the homophobia. That said, 1981 is only 12 years after the Stonewall Riots and pretty early in gay liberation. But to describe sexual orientation as an impairment… I don't understand.
As for Mandelker, I think he is a bit of a literalist. He's a good guy but there's something about going into this kind of stuff full time that really seems to make a big impact on people. It's a pretty human trait to want to seize on material like this and make it an orthodoxy, but anytime you see that, remember that this is in 100% total contravention to the Confederation's stated intent. I wouldn't put too much stock in his third density intepretations (nor mine, for that matter). What's important to pay attention to is what you personally think and how you react to this side of the Creator. Not to be preachy.
One last thing: I think your point about taking the Ra contact as dogma is 200% right. The Confederation has a simple message it repeats. That message is the start of the journey, not the end, and certainly does not constitute the boundaries of acceptability.
Thanks for bringing this up, and I hope you find a path here or elsewhere that serves you.
I'm pretty much in your camp on all points, and I've studied this material for 16 years. Unless there are major issues with the fidelity of the contact at these two junctures, Ra is just flat out wrong in my opinion--or at best, not usefully correct. Full stop, end of story. Ra's comments on homosexuals constitute the low point of the contact record for me; I won't pull punches.
In fact I have a close gay friend whom I'm introducing to this material, and I'm absolutely dreading the point when/if he stumbles on these passages in the Ra material. I think you should do as you see fit with respect to whether or not you accept the totality of the Ra contact, but I would just point out that no Confederation contact I've ever read has ever claimed infallibility. When you think about the gravity of the topics Ra discusses, this foray into near-homophobia is not simply disturbing but kind of bizarre! The sad thing is that this is an area where students of the Law of One could clearly use some guidance when it comes to understanding sexual polarity in finer and more nuanced ways.
Now, all that said, I think we might look at the technical details of Ra's comments. The auric infringement thing always struck me as more about sexual stimulation in general than narrowly homoerotic stimulation. Ra was simply being asked to comment on homosexuals at the time, but IMHO their reasoning could apply to anybody. I think close quarters has the ability to bring out confusion of all sorts, but let's always remember that this confusion is born of social norms and stigmas that baffle the free flow of love and energy. It is not a problem with the individual himself who is still absolutely acceptable and the Creator in every way. Let's keep in mind that catalyst is often borne of yellow ray issues with the society, but it is inherently subjective and knows no political correctness.
One more thing about auric infringement that I have mixed feelings on: if you look at the question it's actually not about why homosexuals have their orientation but instead about Don's perception of the increasing numbers at that time. Who knows, maybe auric infringement plays some sort of role on the margins there, but the idea that anybody would accept this as a sufficient single explanation is laughable. Maybe it activates something somebody remembers from a past life, I don't know. But I also feel like Ra might have been scrambling to answer a bad question with (as often happened in the contact) an overly generalized answer.
I'm actually super impressed at those of you who think Ra's claim that having a majority of past lives of the opposite sex can cause homosexuality is not offensive. It shows tremendous wisdom to be open-minded towards the grand mystery of our past lives. Ra might be right, might be wrong… who here thinks it matters? The important point is that our experience of sex seems to be a great generator of catalyst, and the thing we need to think about is not why we're gay, straight, trans, queer, etc. but how to find the love in any of those experiences.
The point on early imprinting strikes me as much more balanced, personally, precisely because it's so utterly subjective. I don't think Ra's point is that if your first kiss was with a girl, you're stuck kissing girls for the rest of your life. I think the point was more that one's personal significator plays a tremendous role in arranging our reactions to and feelings about things in mysterious ways. Who knows why we're attracted to what we're attracted to, and how the mesh of social sexual norms, energetic blockages and overactivations, childhood experiences of vulnerability and novelty, etc. all come together? This is why it's best to stay on non-transient, universally oriented topics when speaking with the sixth density.
I don't discount the possibility that Ra's comments are colored by 80's thinking and norms, but I think it's a poor excuse for the homophobia. That said, 1981 is only 12 years after the Stonewall Riots and pretty early in gay liberation. But to describe sexual orientation as an impairment… I don't understand.
As for Mandelker, I think he is a bit of a literalist. He's a good guy but there's something about going into this kind of stuff full time that really seems to make a big impact on people. It's a pretty human trait to want to seize on material like this and make it an orthodoxy, but anytime you see that, remember that this is in 100% total contravention to the Confederation's stated intent. I wouldn't put too much stock in his third density intepretations (nor mine, for that matter). What's important to pay attention to is what you personally think and how you react to this side of the Creator. Not to be preachy.
One last thing: I think your point about taking the Ra contact as dogma is 200% right. The Confederation has a simple message it repeats. That message is the start of the journey, not the end, and certainly does not constitute the boundaries of acceptability.
Thanks for bringing this up, and I hope you find a path here or elsewhere that serves you.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)