Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think Ra's take on Homosexuality is idiotic

[Minyatur]

Lived, experienced sexuality is totally a spectrum and probably several spectra, with lots of interrelated energetic phenomena at play.  In any other form of energy we'd easily acknowledge this, understanding that the poles, the extremes at either end of the spectrum, are ideals or archetypes that one approaches but never reaches 100%.  When those of Ra articulate an ideal when it comes to sexuality, why would we expect a special kind of balance to which we'd never hold ourselves in any other energetic aspect?

I think it's just because of struggles with identity. The term distortion is used in the Ra material in such ways it makes this entire thread pointless in my view. Ra speaks of distortions toward love, wisdom and healing even. Everything literally is further distorting of the first distortion, so distortions are not something negative in any way and instead allow complexity to unfold.

If I told a healer it has a distortion toward healing, I'd probably get a yeah I know and a healing smile back full of melancholy.

[Patrick]

It goes without saying that Gay or Straight makes absolutely no differences whatsoever in learning the lessons of love, which is what 3d is all about.

There is nothing wrong. So being Gay can't be wrong.

It's really that simple.

P.S.: Watch how I won't reply to naysayers, this is how to handle those you do not agree with. There is no need to react or defend. Let them have their beliefs.

P.P.S.: I am not Gay, for those wondering.

[Minyatur]

It goes without saying that Gay or Straight makes absolutely no differences whatsoever in learning the lessons of love, which is what 3d is all about.

I can't say I'm entirely sure about this but it could matter on the path of adepthood (not learning love but really adepthood) as this path mean to disidentify with pretty much everything the self has identified with. This probably is true for heterosexuality too although it should be what remains when the bodily field is aligned with itself. To cling too much to an heterosexual identity probably is as blocking as the opposite, just like it would be with identifying too much with your appearance/form (or a desired one) or any other thing of the great many things. As the Creator, our true nature is closer to that of potential than any manifestation of this potential.

If you identify with that which created an inner separation of male/female and female/male to experience this duality, then you will find which portion you are and understand that the red ray drive that is experienced comes from a need to find completion in your beingness where a portion of yourself is missing and that this need can be misplaced in potentially infinite ways. But even a male to female intercourse can just not create a fusion that will truly fill this need if the two are not well aligned just as you could just accentuate the male or female portion within yoursef to find completion as you already contain all things within. The point here is that there's a deeper nature to these 3D phenomenons that go beyond the stories we make with them or struggles we have and the path of adepthood will seek to move beyond the limitations of the self to truly look at the forces beneath.

[Nicholas]

It goes without saying that Gay or Straight makes absolutely no differences whatsoever in learning the lessons of love, which is what 3d is all about.

There is nothing wrong. So being Gay can't be wrong.

It's really that simple.

P.S.: Watch how I won't reply to naysayers, this is how to handle those you do not agree with.  There is no need to react or defend. Let them have their beliefs.

P.P.S.: I am not Gay, for those wondering.

I love it when you come back to the forums more regularly!

My brother in law is gay, my aesthetically pleasing cousin is gay. (no offence brother in law but you are too scrawny for me!)

While at a seaside holiday camp I remarked to one of the workers there on how energetic and inspiring, Mark was (he was the children's entertainer by day and the bingo caller/disco dj at night). The first thing they said was that he was gay. So one evening while he was dishing out the cheesy disco tunes I invited him to dance, and so we did. I even held him as if he was my lady and chuckled to him about the weird stares we were getting from the older crowd sitting frigidly at their tables. Afterwards he invited me to his resident caravan for a coffee, in which I accepted, but it took me repeated attempts to explain to him that I merely loved and appreciated his work!

As a gesture of goodwill I gave him an off the cuff reading (I was psychically active at the time). The poor guy was too embarrassed to say goodbye to me when I went to leave the holiday camp, as he was bent on getting me into bed, and rather confused by my attraction to him. It was a totally beingness type of attraction and was a depth of love that he was unaccustomed to!

But we had a memorable evening nonetheless 

P.S. I am not gay either, I simply loooooove free expression!!!

P.P.S. While on this topic of "out of the box" sexual attraction, on more than one occasion I have unwittingly become aroused simply by stroking my cat and hearing him purr with contentment. Now how frigging weird is that! 

[YinYang]

I find it hilarious how so many people who post in this thread, end with "P.S. I'm not gay". Lol!

[Nicholas]

Just one more thing. As Ra pointed out when they were speaking about parenting and the full acceptance of the beingness of the child. You see, the Creator is unknown to us and one way in which we can bare witness to facettes of the creator is to invite free expression. The unnerving, squeamish and uncomfortable feelings that may arise need to be curtailed if we are to witness aspects of the creator within our illusion.

"The appropriate teach/learning device of parent to child is the open-hearted beingness of the parent and the total acceptance of the beingness of the child. This will encompass whatever material the child entity has brought into the life experience in this plane"

Thanks goodness my auntie accepted my cousins desire to play with dolls when he was 4/5 years old 

[Nicholas]

I find it hilarious how so many people who post in this thread, end with "P.S. I'm not gay". Lol!

I just copied Patrick! I have read less than half a page, but yes, I see your point lol.

[Patrick]

I find it hilarious how so many people who post in this thread, end with "P.S. I'm not gay". Lol!

Must be because we sound so gay.

Which incidentally means in french: cheerful.

[earth_spirit]

-----

[Patrick]

...
Homosexuality justifies itself. There is no need for external approval.

Exactly.

Just like everything else really.

It all just is; and we are here to learn to love it. There is no need to succeed in this. The attempt is what we are after.

[isis]

here's some words from crala on the subject:

excerpts from http://www.llresearch.org/letters/letter_1990_0305.aspx

"The fact that you are homosexual in no way changes the red ray. Sexuality is sexuality. There are no homosexuals. There are only homosexual acts.
...
You are perfect. You like to make love to men. You have the tendency towards homosexual acts, but you are no more a homosexual than I am a heterosexual. We are people. We are human. We have everything in common, including our love for sex. The object of that sex is irrelevant in terms of affirming and loving the red ray center, which is the foundation of survival and the opening, which is absolutely essential to spiritual growth."
...
It is all a matter of giving and receiving pleasure; of expressing the tenderest and most cherishing love. It can be the most noble of exchanges between two people and that doesn’t mean that it has to be a man and a woman. Personally, I like to make love to men so much that I am probably about 99.94% a person who has heterosexual tendencies, but that doesn’t make me better or different than you. It makes me luckier in terms of this culture, which accepts heterosexuality, but there have been other cultures in which homosexuality was completely accepted.

Read some of the old Greek like Socrates and Plato. Homosexuality was a definite option and not judged one way or the other. Respect your red ray.
...
In a practical sense, you are absolutely right. People don’t understand homosexuality one bit; mostly I think because there are fewer homosexuals than there are either heterosexuals or bi-sexuals. And even a lot of people who have homosexual feelings, because of their fear of those exact same feelings, are the ones who speak out the most strongly against homosexuality and call it a sin. People fear what they cannot understand.

I think that I have a grasp on sexuality and I don’t think it matters one hoot, one little tiny iota, what the object of your passion is. It is the same—a reflection in the basic red ray energy center of the passion the Creator feels for us, the enormous joyful love the Creator that created all that there is.
...
You ask, 'What are the preincarnative lessons that I drew to myself?'

By being one capable of homosexual rather than heterosexual acts of love, probably feelings of self-worth. It is very difficult to feel very worthy when you are in a culture that denies almost anyone who does the homosexual act dignity, or integrity, or self-respect and even called such criminalism."


ps: i'm not gay.

[Patrick]

Gosh I loved that woman !  Thank you Carla for the examples you so abundantly presented us with.
 

[Nicholas]

Yeah, nice post iiss 

[Chandlersdad]

It goes without saying that Gay or Straight makes absolutely no differences whatsoever in learning the lessons of love, which is what 3d is all about.

There is nothing wrong. So being Gay can't be wrong.

It's really that simple.

P.S.: Watch how I won't reply to naysayers, this is how to handle those you do not agree with.  There is no need to react or defend. Let them have their beliefs.

P.P.S.: I am not Gay, for those wondering.

I am going to assume that people who add "I am not gay" are doing so to illustrate that heterosexuals care about equality and have pondered the complexities of sexuality. I do think that Ra did a lot of damage with Session 31. But we must bear in mind that Ra never claimed to be omniscient with holy words to be worshiped and not allowing any refutation with actual human experience.

I am replying to your comment because I very much appreciate what you said about how to deal with naysayers. This is an issue I have been asking myself about since a certain poster here pushed my buttons. Why did I care what this person wrote? Why did I respond? It is obvious that such people never learn anything and are closer to Trolls than sincere but misguided individuals. Imagine a straight person presuming that their opinion of homosexuality is as valid as someone who is 64 and has been gay as far back as memory serves!

But perhaps I acknowledged this person because for a very large percentage of my life, I was not allowed to ever respond to such people. I was not allowed to be myself at work for most of my 30 years if I wanted to maintain employment. I could not respond to snide gay jokes told in the work place. I could not acknowledge my life partner in public with any affection. It has been an under cover life. I hope young gay people do not have to do that anymore. But I suspect many do in large "red" sections of the nation.

So perhaps I have built up a lot of rage and anger in my Shadow (3rd ray?). I would seek help to release it without putting on my Captain Gay uniform and brandishing my shield to ward off comments in a tiny forum about Ra. It takes its toll to keep your "true" self (within 3 D sexuality) a secret much of your life, and I have sought spiritual comfort and metaphysical truth. From knowing Jane Roberts personally and practically memorizing the Seth books, to American mysticism via Joel Goldsmith, to the Course in Miracles, to various other belief systems. With Ra, I felt I had found some truly deep material, a structure upon which to hang my spiritual development in the latter part of my life. Then I came to Session 31, and my entire biography came crashing back down upon me.  

I apologize for not being as detached from the issue as most of you seem to be. Being gay has been a GIANT catalyst in this life time. I did not want it, so no choice was involved. I was thrown out of my parents' fundamentalist home at 16 because of it, and never went back (hitchhiked to San Francisco where a social agency set up to help gay kids on the street helped me finish highschool and get through college). I appreciate the heterosexual folks' support, but I have to gently remind you that you haven't walked in a gay person's shoes. To you, it is sort of a blue ray intellectual issue. One person even said there was no reason for this thread. That is not the voice of empathy speaking.

I am not seeking pity. Nonetheless, this path has not been easy for me. I did seem to make sure I would not be on the path alone. I met my life partner 40 years ago and we have been together ever since.  Happily, we have different catalysts so we can serve as "reality checks" for each other. However, I never burden him with my on-line life.

It is time for me to stop attacking windmills, to use the L/L Research logo.  I do not want to give any judgmental person (who states their judgment in terms of Ra dogma) any power to push my 3rd chakra (or perhaps 2nd?) buttons. This thread has helped me see that. So, Patrick, I will NOT respond to such people in the future. It is always tempting to defend my right to exist as I am, something that this society has never allowed me to do. But one of the major learnings of this catalyst is that each individual must love who he is, and develop a deep empathy for other people. This allowed me to be a Chaplain for 10 years in a Unity New Thought Church. Listening is what I do best. Arguing? Not so much. LOL

Oh, I realize that according to Ra and many other metaphysical teachings, I created my life script before the incarnation. I learned this relatively late in my life. I now see the great value that the friction of this catalyst has given me for escaping from the usual 3 D repeater mainstream society. Once when I was young, in exasperation I said to god "Do I have to forgive the entire planet?!?!"   Now I know that the answer is YES.

Carla wrote "There are no homosexuals. There are only homosexual acts."

I am sorry but Carla was wrong. There are homosexuals who never partake of a homosexual act. My parents and I knew I was very different from other boys by the time I was 8 years old, long before I had any sexual feelings whatsoever. My interests were feminine according to our society. I was a gentle person who could not understand the walls that other boys put up amongst their tribe (fighting physically, calling each other by their last name, enjoying violence via sports....). Homosexuality is not simply an act. It is a unique sense of self. I wonder if naive Carla ever noted that right wing religions agree with her. "God does not make people gay. There are no homosexuals. There are just evil men who CHOOSE to have gay sex, a malicious act against god and decency".

One final point on Ra.  RA seems to have screwed up every single interaction with human beings through time, e.g., by giving truth and technology to humans that they later used for STS purposes. To say that Ra has ever truly understood the 3rd density experience of humanity is not supported by Ra's actions amongst humans over time. As Scott Mandelker said in one of his YOUTUBE Ra sessions "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!?!?!" in reaction to yet another Ra screw up in contacting humans on the planet.

Take care, everyone.


  10502232_10153113350371462_663906205129042276_n.jpg (Size: 62.92 KB / Downloads: 9)

[YinYang]

This is an issue I have been asking myself about since a certain poster here pushed my buttons. Why did I care what this person wrote? Why did I respond?

Your spontaneous reaction is encouraged, suppression of emotions is discouraged in the Ra material. It's deleterious for positively polarising entities to suppress emotions.

Questioner: What is the difference in terms of energy center activation between a person who represses emotional responses to emotionally charged situations and the person who is balanced and, therefore, truly unswayed by emotionally charged situations?

Ra: I am Ra. This query contains an incorrect assumption. To the truly balanced entity no situation would be emotionally charged. With this understood, we may say the following: The repression of emotions depolarizes the entity in so far as it then chooses not to use the catalytic action of the space/time present in a spontaneous manner, thus dimming the energy centers. There is, however, some polarization towards positive if the cause of this repression is consideration for other-selves. The entity which has worked long enough with the catalyst to be able to feel the catalyst but not find it necessary to express reactions is not yet balanced but suffers no depolarization due to the transparency of its experiential continuum. Thus the gradual increase in the ability to observe one’s reaction and to know the self will bring the self ever closer to a true balance. Patience is requested and suggested, for the catalyst is intense upon your plane and its use must be appreciated over a period of consistent learn/teaching.

Becoming unswayed is something worth aspiring to I'm sure, one little step at a time...

Questioner: I will attempt to make an analogy. If an animal, shall I say, a bull, in a pen attacks you because you have wandered into his pen, you get out of his way rapidly but you do not blame him. You do not have much of an emotional response other than the response that he might damage you. However, if you encounter another self in his territory and he attacks you, your response may be more of an emotional nature creating physical bodily responses. Am I correct in assuming that when your response to the animal and to the other-self is that of seeing both as Creator and loving both and understanding their action in attacking you is the action of their free will then you have balanced yourself correctly in this area? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is basically correct. However, the balanced entity will see in the seeming attack of an other-self the causes of this action which are, in most cases, of a more complex nature than the cause of the attack of the second-density bull as was your example. Thus this balanced entity would be open to many more opportunities for service to a third-density other-self.

Questioner: Would a perfectly balanced entity feel any emotional response in being attacked by the other-self?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. The response is love.

Questioner: In the illusion that we now experience it is difficult to maintain this response especially if the attack results in physical pain, but I assume that this response should be maintained even through physical pain or loss of life. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and further is of a major or principle importance in understanding, shall we say, the principle of balance. Balance is not indifference but rather the observer not blinded by any feelings of separation but rather fully imbued with love.

This type on entity, fully balanced like this, is extremely rare on the earth plane according to Ra, Chandlersdad, so don't be so hard on yourself.

You strike me as someone who might be a Far Side fan...

[Billy]

Carla wrote "There are no homosexuals. There are only homosexual acts."

I am sorry but Carla was wrong. There are homosexuals who never partake of a homosexual act. My parents and I knew I was very different from other boys by the time I was 8 years old, long before I had any sexual feelings whatsoever. My interests were feminine according to our society. I was a gentle person who could not understand the walls that other boys put up amongst their tribe (fighting physically, calling each other by their last name, enjoying violence via sports....).  Homosexuality is not simply an act. It is a unique sense of self.  I wonder if naive Carla ever noted that right wing religions agree with her. "God does not make people gay. There are no homosexuals. There are just evil men who CHOOSE to have gay sex, a malicious act against god and decency".

I think that Carla was more so trying to express that we are so much more than our sexuality, not that everyone is heterosexual and some simply choose to be gay.  That's how I took this quote anyways:

You have the tendency towards homosexual acts, but you are no more a homosexual than I am a heterosexual. We are people. We are human.

I think she was saying that labels can obscure what is going on energetically, and that homosexuality is just as valid as heterosexuality. I think it is a call to not get so caught up by what something looks like and instead realise that it is the same love/energy, or at least it can be, just a different expression/form. The painter who,inspired by love, paints a garden, has the same energy working through him, as the painter who inspired by love, paints a sunset.

[Chandlersdad]

This is an issue I have been asking myself about since a certain poster here pushed my buttons. Why did I care what this person wrote? Why did I respond?

Your spontaneous reaction is encouraged, suppression of emotions is discouraged in the Ra material. It's deleterious for positively polarising entities to suppress emotions.

Questioner: What is the difference in terms of energy center activation between a person who represses emotional responses to emotionally charged situations and the person who is balanced and, therefore, truly unswayed by emotionally charged situations?

Ra: I am Ra. This query contains an incorrect assumption. To the truly balanced entity no situation would be emotionally charged. With this understood, we may say the following: The repression of emotions depolarizes the entity in so far as it then chooses not to use the catalytic action of the space/time present in a spontaneous manner, thus dimming the energy centers. There is, however, some polarization towards positive if the cause of this repression is consideration for other-selves. The entity which has worked long enough with the catalyst to be able to feel the catalyst but not find it necessary to express reactions is not yet balanced but suffers no depolarization due to the transparency of its experiential continuum. Thus the gradual increase in the ability to observe one’s reaction and to know the self will bring the self ever closer to a true balance. Patience is requested and suggested, for the catalyst is intense upon your plane and its use must be appreciated over a period of consistent learn/teaching.

Becoming unswayed is something worth aspiring to I'm sure, one little step at a time...

Questioner: I will attempt to make an analogy. If an animal, shall I say, a bull, in a pen attacks you because you have wandered into his pen, you get out of his way rapidly but you do not blame him. You do not have much of an emotional response other than the response that he might damage you. However, if you encounter another self in his territory and he attacks you, your response may be more of an emotional nature creating physical bodily responses. Am I correct in assuming that when your response to the animal and to the other-self is that of seeing both as Creator and loving both and understanding their action in attacking you is the action of their free will then you have balanced yourself correctly in this area? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is basically correct. However, the balanced entity will see in the seeming attack of an other-self the causes of this action which are, in most cases, of a more complex nature than the cause of the attack of the second-density bull as was your example. Thus this balanced entity would be open to many more opportunities for service to a third-density other-self.

Questioner: Would a perfectly balanced entity feel any emotional response in being attacked by the other-self?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. The response is love.

Questioner: In the illusion that we now experience it is difficult to maintain this response especially if the attack results in physical pain, but I assume that this response should be maintained even through physical pain or loss of life. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and further is of a major or principle importance in understanding, shall we say, the principle of balance. Balance is not indifference but rather the observer not blinded by any feelings of separation but rather fully imbued with love.

This type on entity, fully balanced like this, is extremely rare on the earth plane according to Ra, Chandlersdad, so don't be so hard on yourself.

You strike me as someone who might be a Far Side fan...

Thank you so much! One thing I do not want to do (since I have seen it so often when I was a chaplain) is to pretend to be more advanced spiritually than I really am. This seems to be common in religious and spiritual groups. I realize that at times it is valid to FAKE IT TO MAKE IT. But I also recall that a major component of blue ray 5th chakra is honesty (to oneself and others). So I always want to acknowledge my anger and other emotional charges. How else can we investigate their core and perhaps heal them? I was in psychotherapy for 3 years specifically for this purpose and it was richly rewarding. I was amazed at times how much classic psychotherapy corresponds with modern spiritual belief systems. Anyway, I would not repress my emotions and I hope no one else will do so. There are exercises to alleviate the emotion. In Carla's Law of One 101 book she refers to strengthening the emotional charge and then switching to its opposite to balance the 2. I find this rather hard. Another exercise is to strengthen the emotional charge until is peters out on its own volition. I find that with enough emphasis, my emotional charge can become silly to me, and my mind creates a vision of me in a silly position, which dissipates the emotion. For example, if I am angry about social injustice, I intensify this emotion until I suddenly see myself as Joan of Arc racing across the country on a horse, which inevitably disfuses the emotion.

P.S. Love Farside.

Life goes on.

[ricdaw]

Anyway, I would not repress my emotions and I hope no one else will do so. There are exercises to alleviate the emotion. In Carla's Law of One 101 book she refers to strengthening the emotional charge and then switching to its opposite to balance the 2.  I find this rather hard. Another exercise is to strengthen the emotional charge until is peters out on its own volition. I find that with enough emphasis, my emotional charge can become silly to me, and my mind creates a vision of me in a silly position, which dissipates the emotion. For example, if I am angry about social injustice, I intensify this emotion until I suddenly see myself as Joan of Arc racing across the country on a horse, which inevitably disfuses the emotion.

P.S. Love Farside.

Life goes on.

Another way (but one which is really hard to do in realtime) is to imagine an excuse/reason/motivation for the Otherself's action/words that could justify a loving response. Someone cuts you off in traffic? => family crisis and racing home to fix it. Gay slur => secretly and tortured gay themselves. Racist => taught fear by family and Fox news. None of these might be true, of course. But if I can imagine any possible kindness, then I find it much easier to come to the loving place.

But when you're in the bar, drink in hand, and witness aggression, homophobia or racism, it's hard to find the charitable thought when you are flushed with adrenaline!

Love you all.

[YinYang]

One thing I do not want to do (since I have seen it so often when I was a chaplain) is to pretend to be more advanced spiritually than I really am. This seems to be common in religious and spiritual groups.

I cannot stand that "acting pious and righteous" business... but that's me. That's why I adore Alan Watts so much, because he was so real. You should try and get some of his lectures, especially the Out of Your Mind series. He was funny, witty, naughty, and just a breath of fresh air.

He's usually my biggest reminder to just chill and have fun, it's all a game. Spirituality without humour is no spirituality at all, that's people fooling themselves.

[Patrick]

 
Many people believe they should be reactive because they say they do not want to repress their feelings.

I keep this quote in mind all the time.  It is very important to me.

Ra: "...There is, however, some polarization towards positive if the cause of this repression is consideration for other-selves..."

To me, not reacting implicitly means not reacting negatively.  I agree 100% that repression is not the best use of catalyst.

For someone polarizing positively, the best use of a catalyst is a positive reaction, and if one is not yet capable of a positive reaction in a given context then not reacting is better than reacting negatively.

This is what is meant by Ra in the above quote.
 

[Nau7ik]

It goes without saying that Gay or Straight makes absolutely no differences whatsoever in learning the lessons of love, which is what 3d is all about.

There is nothing wrong. So being Gay can't be wrong.

It's really that simple.

P.S.: Watch how I won't reply to naysayers, this is how to handle those you do not agree with. There is no need to react or defend. Let them have their beliefs.

P.P.S.: I am not Gay, for those wondering.

I definitely agree with everything you said

[BlatzAdict]

lol even at homecoming, people just can't stop talking about this, I don't think we left the L/L Research back yard because our higher selves are all still there testing each other and sharing ideas. I'm laughing.. I love you all. so much.

[Chandlersdad]

 
Many people believe they should be reactive because they say they do not want to repress their feelings.

I keep this quote in mind all the time.  It is very important to me.

Ra: "...There is, however, some polarization towards positive if the cause of this repression is consideration for other-selves..."

To me, not reacting implicitly means not reacting negatively.  I agree 100% that repression is not the best use of catalyst.

For someone polarizing positively, the best use of a catalyst is a positive reaction, and if one is not yet capable of a positive reaction in a given context then not reacting is better than reacting negatively.

This is what is meant by Ra in the above quote.
 

Well, the best psychotherapy would say that telling people that their reaction must be positive or there should be no reaction is just another way of saying you should repress your actual negative reaction. I did this for decades and had a nervous breakdown in 2010. What is advised is to get in touch totally with your Observer Self. Realize that you are not your thoughts nor your emotions. They flow through you. The Observer can see a reaction of anger and ponder it. The human being does not have to externally manifest this anger, realizing that it would be inappropriate in the situation. At that point, the human then is ready (via the Observer Self) to work with the anger via the exercises provided by Ra and on this forum. RA was stating the ideal situation. But what I find is that a lot of humans don't want to go through the work to get there. Instead, they simply jump there by repressing their reactions that do not fit the Ra ideal. We are meant to acknowledge our reactions and then work with them. If we find we have a reaction that we cannot control, that is time for an external coach/therapist to help us.

P.S. I am gay, for those wondering.

[YinYang]

Ra was stating the ideal situation. But what I find is that a lot of humans don't want to go through the work to get there. Instead, they simply jump there by repressing their reactions that do not fit the Ra ideal. We are meant to acknowledge our reactions and then work with them.

Exactly! There's a bit of overlap between this and what I tried to convey in the meat thread.

It happens from the inside out, which is why I mentioned people acting righteous and pious. Inauthenticity is a dead end, there is no spiritual evolution in imitating say Jesus or Buddha... that's how we're taught from childhood...

P.S. I'm the Creator playing hide and seek with itself! (stole that from Alan Watts). Jesus by the way was the rebel of rebels! Buddha as well! Those "saintly" and "holier-than-thou" portrayals of them isn't helping anyone.

[Patrick]

...telling people that their reaction must be positive or there should be no reaction is just another way of saying you should repress your actual negative reaction...

If the negative reaction would be at the expanse of another self, then yes.

But you are not asked to repress any feelings here.  I agree with the rest of your post.  These things are not easy to convey in any case.
 

[Patrick]

Ra was stating the ideal situation. But what I find is that a lot of humans don't want to go through the work to get there. Instead, they simply jump there by repressing their reactions that do not fit the Ra ideal. We are meant to acknowledge our reactions and then work with them.

Exactly! There's a bit of overlap between this and what I tried to convey in the meat thread.

It happens from the inside out, which is why I mentioned people acting righteous and pious. Inauthenticity is a dead end, there is no spiritual evolution in imitating say Jesus or Buddha... that's how we're taught from childhood...

P.S. I'm the Creator playing hide and seek with itself! (stole that from Alan Watts). Jesus by the way was the rebel of rebels! Buddha as well! Those "saintly" and "holier-than-thou" portrayals of them isn't helping anyone.

Would you say that lashing out at another self when angry is ok ?  Yes since all is ok, but for someone polarizing positively, there are more skillful choices.

We can work with our anger without repressing and without lashing out.  Not an easy skill I know.

All I am saying is that while we are acquiring this skill, not lashing out (and not replying angrily to posts), is going to polarize one positively since it would have been at the expanse of another self.

My life is so much better and easier since I have started applying this.  I am not repressing anger, I am choosing to work with it in other ways other than transferring some to others.

P.S.: Loved your post in the meat thread by the way.
 

[Saiyan]

Dear Chandlersdad,

I am glad that you have accepted the lesson I was trying to "teach" you :-P

I wouldn't even respond to that thread, but I had to because I have felt a lot of anger coming from you about something that someone has said that you disagree with (Ra and that youtube guy).

There are a lot of people who like gay people, like a lof of forum members here.
There are a lot of people who hate gay people, and want you all dead :-(

And there are people like me. I don't hate you, far from it. But I can't accept gay orientation as something normal. But than again, that is my problem, only mine.

I agree when people say that you guys are some really really brave souls.
I mean, you choose to be like that in a world like this, with people like me :-)
That kind of catalyst is really though, and I respect you greatly for it.

I am trying to say that I have intentionally "pushed your buttons", not for the fun of it, but to show you that what you think is ok/normal/good, there will always be people who think that it is not ok/not normal/not good.

And that all you have to do, for your own good, is to accept it as our opinion. Do not be mad at us, do not resent us, just let us be "foolish" as we are :-)

If you and I were to meet in real life, you would see that I don't "hate" you.
We could chill out all day and be good friends, and at the end of a day, I would still tell you that being gay isn't "normal",  but I would chill out again with you. And every time you say it is "normal", I would say it isn't, over and over again, but I wouldn't let that disagreement affect our friendship.

Just wanted to tell you why have I been acting the way that I did, and I hope that I haven't offended you or piss you off too much. If I have, I apologize.

Enjoy your choosen life and don't let bastards like me affect you my friend :-)

All the best wishes to you my brother...

PS: my username is Asian, but I'm from Europe ;-)

[Dog Star]

The name is a Japanese anagram of yasai (野菜), which is Japanese for vegetable

[Minyatur]

The name is a Japanese anagram of yasai (野菜), which is Japanese for vegetable

Well that kind of ruins Dragonball.

From Saiyan's avatar, I can see he reached super vegetable level 3 already.

[YinYang]

Would you say that lashing out at another self when angry is ok ?  Yes since all is ok, but for someone polarizing positively, there are more skillful choices.

We can work with our anger without repressing and without lashing out.  Not an easy skill I know.

All I am saying is that while we are acquiring this skill, not lashing out (and not replying angrily to posts), is going to polarize one positively since it would have been at the expanse of another self.

My life is so much better and easier since I have started applying this.  I am not repressing anger, I am choosing to work with it in other ways other than transferring some to others.
 

I would say that in certain situations anger is justified. Are we not all things? I have seen many instances in my life where anger in a situation (either my own or someone else’s) was just the ingredient that was needed. In general I'm someone who diffuse escalating situations.

Carla told a story once where her brother Tommy came to her and insinuated that she was “busy with the work of the devil” or something to that effect, and she lashed out at him in anger. I think it was one of the podcasts where she said it, and she said in that particular situation anger was just what was needed.

Anger is linked to fear, whenever you become angry, there is an element of fear involved, but it’s part of the growing process. The path that we’re on eliminates fear eventually, and then anger also vanishes.

Every situation is unique, every entity is unique. My point was basically that I don’t appreciate inauthenticity. Look what a wonderful and educational discussion this thread has turned into because of people’s authenticity and blue ray. Continued disharmony essentially destroys though, so it's a fine balance.

P.S.: Loved your post in the meat thread by the way.

Thanks! Those two teachers are amongst my favourites! I believe Prentice Mulford was first to use the wording "Law of attraction", before it became mainstream. He was very big on "thought currents", what you focus on, you attract.