+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Strictly Law of One Material (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: [split] Adversary relationships, and the mated pair (/showthread.php?tid=18776)
[split] Adversary relationships, and the mated pair - Dtris - 12-12-2020
(12-12-2020, 06:21 AM)confusedseeker Wrote:(12-12-2020, 06:01 AM)Great Central Sun Wrote:(12-12-2020, 03:41 AM)confusedseeker Wrote: What really struck me is when Ra seemed to bash marriage. Instead Ra seemed to support the idea of free love exchange of some sort, which sounds like an utter disaster. This always rubbed me the wrong way as well.
They also say how most wanderer densities (I think 4-6) are adverse to childbearing.
Yup. Marriage, family, raising children are so great for society and ourselves, so that always struck me as odd.
He called them adversary relationships. Which imo is due to the legal framework we have enshrined around the concept of marriage. Everything about the two individuals gets tied together and if for some reason they want two different things, then either one must prevail or the relationship will end.
This causes many negative emotions such as resentment, anger, jealousy, etc.
His statement about children was similar, that wanderer's tend to have an aversion to having children. Infinite gave the exact reason why. I would imagine in a lot of people that is subconscious though.
What is important when reading the Ra material is to understand that their remarks are made as an outside observer. They have no skin in the game. As near as I can tell they never make value judgements. If you have an emotional reaction to Ra making a statement, such as feeling they are putting down something or saying something is not natural, then that is probably your own biases coming forth. Nothing wrong with that, it happens to everyone. It is catalyst if you learn from it. Same goes to anything else you read or hear as well. The Ra material makes good practice in using that as catalyst since it can be so dry and intellectual. Compared to normal conversations or even us talking on here.
RE: Ra’s explanation of homosexuality. - Patrick - 12-12-2020
My understanding is that when Ra discusses marriages, they mean it in the sense of a forced marriage or at least the feeling that you are trapped if you change your mind on the relationship latter in life.
Quote:31.16 Questioner: I just need to know if this then works through the racial memory to infect the entire population in some way. Does that sort of thing happen?
Ra: I am Ra. The racial memory contains all that has been experienced. Thus there is some, shall we say, contamination even of the sexual, this showing mostly in your own culture as the various predispositions to adversary relationships, or, as you call them, marriages, rather than the free giving one to another in the love and the light of the Infinite Creator.
So when you are living with someone else and both are perfectly ok in the relationship, it is not an adversary relationship.
Also, our local Logos has a bias towards having one mate (at least one at a time
).Quote:84.22 Questioner: Before the veil, were there— Let me put it this way: Did the Logos, or did most Logoi plan before the veil to create a system of random sexual activity or specific pairing of entities for periods of time, or did they have an objective in this respect?
Ra: I am Ra. This shall be the last full query of this working.
The harvest from the previous creation was that which included the male and female mind/body/spirit. It was the intention of the original Logoi that entities mate with one another in any fashion which caused a greater polarization. It was determined, after observation of the process of many Logoi, that polarization increased many fold if the mating were not indiscriminate. Consequent Logoi thusly preserved a bias towards the mated relationship which is more characteristic of more disciplined personalities and of what you may call higher densities. The free will of each entity, however, was always paramount and a bias only could be offered.
There is also this which is beautiful regarding a one to one relationship, including marriages.
Quote:86.20 Ra: I am Ra. Yes. Let us deal with the sexual energy transfer. Before the veiling such a transfer was always possible due to there being no shadow upon the grasp of the nature of the body complex* and its relationship to other mind/body/spirit complexes** in this particular manifestation. Before the veiling process there was a near total lack of the use of this sexual energy transfer beyond green ray.
This also was due to the same unshadowed knowledge each had of each. There was, in third density then, little purpose to be seen in the more intensive relationships of mind, body, and spirit complexes*** which you may call those of the mating process, since each other-self was seen to be the Creator and no other-self seemed to be more the Creator than another.
After the veiling process it became infinitely more difficult to achieve green-ray energy transfer due to the great areas of mystery and unknowing concerning the body complex and its manifestations. However, also due to the great shadowing of the manifestations of the body from the conscious mind complex, when such energy transfer was experienced it was likelier to provide catalyst which caused a bonding of self with other-self in a properly polarized configuration.
From this point it was far more likely that higher energy transfers would be sought by this mated pair of mind/body/spirit complexes, thus allowing the Creator to know Itself with great beauty, solemnity, and wonder. Intelligent infinity having been reached by this sacramental use of this function of the body, each mind/body/spirit complex of the mated pair gained greatly in polarization and in ability to serve.
A perfectly consensual marriage truly is a beautiful sacrament. The only thing here that Ra is pointing out, is that if at some point the consensus is no longer there, then it should be natural to dissolve the marriage. But as Ra is pointing out, it's currently far from the natural thing to do. Instead it often becomes an adversary relationship where we feel stuck.
So, as a society, all we need to do is adjust our view of marriage from being "for the life of the wedded" to being "for the life of the relationship".
RE: Ra’s explanation of homosexuality. - Diana - 12-12-2020
I guess I will jump in with a few thoughts. There has already been some good feedback on the intention of Ra's statements being more objective than accusatory.
My feeling about marriage is that it should not even exist as a legally binding contract, and furthermore, if it does, then the persons involved in the contract should be any consulting adults whomever they are. I personally feel that monogamy for monogamy's sake is infringement of free will. If two (or more) people want to be together, then they are, as simple as that. The conviction to commit to someone should come from within, not from anywhere else. I feel that laws and societal judgments are archaic in this regard.
Having children is another subject. In this world, I seldom see really good reasons for having children. Then the children are born into dysfunctional families of varying degrees. I suppose this is a way to generate catalyst or process "karmic" relationships and issues. But it seems to me that when we have more, and significant, life extension, there will be a better opportunity to learn about self, without the complications of this kind of enmeshment.
RE: RA’s explanation of homosexuality. - flofrog - 12-12-2020
Thank you Patrick and Diana. For sure, if we put ourselves in the perspective of 4th or 5th density when there is less or non implication of sexuality, reproduction, forced mariages etc... and we look from there back at the veiled 3rd density we are in, we feel like, ohhh that's a lot to deal with,
Like Diana, I feel we should all have the complete freedom to be with any gender we like, if only purely as a matter of free will.
Thank you Patrick for the 86.20 Ra quote, just beautiful. I never thought I would have children nor marriage, and yet I got married late and had three kids. I have to say the extreme sorrows and highest joys make up for a rather amazing terrestrial trip...
Best, best wishes Ralib 1
RE: [split] Adversary relationships, and the mated pair - Glow - 12-13-2020
I will add only one bit about antagonistic relationships.
Most humans are not aware of their subconscious draw towards reenacting wound reinforcing patterns they learned from caregivers.
A majority choose mates with distortions that will “push their buttons” often called karma(things needing to be worked out to be forgiven/learned).
This is obviously great catylist but not harmonious or fully of green ray.
Obviously once the karma is no longer needed the relationship loses its purpose because it wasn’t based on service or union but upon the karma being faced to be healed. Useful obviously but not of higher densities unveiled choice for growing in harmonious union.
No matter if one choses to make it legal or not is just a distortion of choice. Obviously in this society legal means protection of mutual property and rights to over see care if one becomes ill so certainly useful.
RE: [split] Adversary relationships, and the mated pair - Louisabell - 12-13-2020
Good points have already been covered here. I just wanted to add another point on Ra's quote referring to marriage as an 'adversary relationship'.
I think greater clarity can be gained when seeing the focus of that statement being on the nature of the sexual energy exchange itself. Ra states that the ideal sexuality is "the free giving one to another in the love and the light of the Infinite Creator". 'Free giving' does not ask or demand anything 'extra' to the act of service itself. When using this as a starting point, it can easily be seen how the concept of marriage can be at odds with this.
The concept of 'marriage' often gives people an incentive or expectation surrounding sex, whether consciously or subconsciously. It may not even be intentional, but a permanent question of 'what does this mean about our commitment to each-other' can hang over the experience. The tropes of "hooking someone in" with sex, or certain expectations that a married couple should have a certain amount of sex on a regular basis exist. There can then be the forming of obligation or guilt pertaining to sex, or lack there of. All these issues can take away from the spontaneous, free-flowing nature of "free-giving".
Marriage itself is a very significant contract codified into the laws of the land. This then puts a heavy weight within the yellow ray energy centre, where the sexuality of a person has been entangled within the societal milieu to a great degree. This can be heavy enough to make it difficult to move past the orange and yellow rays, into exchanges of the higher energy centres, where sexual encounters are offered as a pure gift and sanctified within the presence of the Creator.
This is not to say that sexual energy transfers in the higher rays cannot happen in the context of a marriage!!! But I suppose I am saying that it happens in spite of a marriage contract, not because of it.
I tend to agree that the institution of marriage itself has a stabilising effect on society, and currently the best situation to raise children within. However, it cannot be forgotten that in humanity's tribal past, marriage wasn't as common or neccessary. I know that in the history of certain Celtic tribes in Portugal, the tribal women would mate with whomever they found to be the best genetic fit at the time. Children were then raised by the whole tribe. This behaviour was largely changed with Roman influence (as they brought in their monetary system). The Romans were huge proponents of marriage, and enjoyed the benefits of wealth and family lineage preservation. So indeed, all these trends are recorded in the racial complex and have implications for us today.
RE: [split] Adversary relationships, and the mated pair - confusedseeker - 12-13-2020
After thinking about this quote and re-reading, I think I totally misinterpreted it. Thanks all for the clarity. After reading some other quotes, it's pretty clear that Ra is referring to a specific type of marriage.
As for children, I used to think that there was no point in having them. And even after reading Ra 10 years ago I thought the same. As I've gotten older, I've realized there is something very valuable in raising an aware child with a high "conscience"...for as Ra points out, it ADDS to the elevation of the entire society and the planet as a whole. Let's say everything Ra says is true..then in my estimation there is literally nothing better most of us can do. If evil keeps reproducing, and those of us who are good/know good and can teach good stop...the result is dire. Not only that, but raising a child with love is such a unique opportunity afforded to us by both biology and infinity. We need more positive warriors on this planet, or the "battle" is lost.
There is also the egotistical part of having a child which involves passing on your own dna and lineage, which never resonated with me. I could kind of care less about that, but Ra mentions some stuff about a "racial complex" which I haven't fully digested yet. I've often wondered what Ra meant by "racial" complex, is it the human race on Earth? Or is each specific race bonded together on the journey? Or is it every being that shares our DNA? It was kind of hard to figure out. I was going to make another post about that.
RE: [split] Adversary relationships, and the mated pair - flofrog - 12-13-2020
Confusedseeker, I might be wrong but I think Ra meant using this as a descriptive category, not with any moral judgment on it, just as a clarification concept.
@ Louisabell... about the celtic tribe in Portugal and mariage, there is in fact a small place on Earth were there is still a similar matriarcal example... In south west China, there is beautiful lake named Lugu Lake. My children and I hiked through there about 18 years ago. They pay a special tax to the Chinese government, but they have their own independent government and women are in charge of it. Small bungalows are built on stilts around the lake. Women live in their own, and men in their own. Children are raised by the women and at puberty young boys join the men. They have each night a communal fire with dances and telling stories, and women discreetly chose their male counterpart for the night. The chosen person comes and leaves his boots at the bottom of the small stairs, he is supposed to bring a small piece of meat for the dog. Women stop their sexual life at the age of 30.
When we stopped there for a night at a small hotel we went to attend a fire ceremony and my son who was 15 was invited by one of the young women to join the dance, but he didn't get invited further...
I have to say we were the only visitors from the west. There is an island on the lake with a beautiful buddhist temple. A place definitely out of this world.
on edit : in a way you could almost say this was a small social memory complex to themselves.
RE: [split] Adversary relationships, and the mated pair - Glow - 12-13-2020
(12-13-2020, 02:37 PM)flofrog Wrote: Confusedseeker, I might be wrong but I think Ra meant using this as a descriptive category, not with any moral judgment on it, just as a clarification concept.
@ Louisabell... about the celtic tribe in Portugal and mariage, there is in fact a small place on Earth were there is still a similar matriarcal example... In south west China, there is beautiful lake named Lugu Lake. My children and I hiked through there about 18 years ago. They pay a special tax to the Chinese government, but they have their own independent government and women are in charge of it. Small bungalows are built on stilts around the lake. Women live in their own, and men in their own. Children are raised by the women and at puberty young boys join the men. They have each night a communal fire with dances and telling stories, and women discreetly chose their male counterpart for the night. The chosen person comes and leaves his boots at the bottom of the small stairs, he is supposed to bring a small piece of meat for the dog. Women stop their sexual life at the age of 30.
When we stopped there for a night at a small hotel we went to attend a fire ceremony and my son who was 15 was invited by one of the young women to join the dance, but he didn't get invited further...
There is an island on the lake with a beautiful buddhist temple. A place definitely out of this world.
on edit : in a way you could almost say this was a small social memory complex to themselves.
I’ve read about similar cultures.
It’s interesting how everything is so relative.
And while I have had what would be considered a poly relationship in the love sense the above describe cultural practice doesn’t seem very higher density to me anymore that our western culture. Matehood energy exchange wise.
In such a veiled density as 3D where oneness isn’t blatant and to be honest most aren’t even seeking that. To go deep in service and union there needs to be some sense of dedication to one another to reach that depth. Indiscriminate or very casual exchanges would be most likely of the lower rays, and that’s totally ok but not to me a seeking towards true free giving of higher realms.
In 4D and above we are less veiled so can recognize the creator in each and immediately have a greenray exchange. Here 3D such activity would very very rarely go above yellow ray. Unless of course their culture is more anchored on unity but then likely it wouldn’t be so structured, and a personal ego note GASP* good god why would any 30 year old want to stop sharing in the expression of unity. Maybe that is an anchor towards reproduction lower ray activity if it stops at 30–ish?
Not saying it’s bad in any way just to me it doesn’t reflect the sexual energy exchanges Ra describes as being most polarizing.
Not saying my perspective is anymore correct than another’s just sharing my thoughts.
RE: [split] Adversary relationships, and the mated pair - flofrog - 12-13-2020
It is just observing something completely different... I was not implying any higher or lower density, it is just that there are hubs of people living very differently
RE: [split] Adversary relationships, and the mated pair - Glow - 12-13-2020
Ah that’s a good point. I was on a different thread in my head I guess.
I wonder if they are prone to antagonistic relationships too.
Maybe less so since they could avoid ones who proved to provoke that.
RE: [split] Adversary relationships, and the mated pair - Ohr Ein Sof - 12-13-2020
When I think of adversary relationships, I think of one that is completely incompatible where the mated two are at odds with one another continually as does happen in most of our marriages and this would definitely be the reason for so many divorces. We mistaken sexual infatuation and lust with love and this is not love at all as we know. It is quite prevalent in our society to "want" someone and objectify another human being which is a distorted manifestation of the orange ray and is a real problem within our societal structure causing many, many relationship dysfunctions.
RE: [split] Adversary relationships, and the mated pair - KaliSouth - 04-17-2021
(12-12-2020, 12:45 PM)Diana Wrote: I guess I will jump in with a few thoughts. There has already been some good feedback on the intention of Ra's statements being more objective than accusatory.
My feeling about marriage is that it should not even exist as a legally binding contract, and furthermore, if it does, then the persons involved in the contract should be any consulting adults whomever they are. I personally feel that monogamy for monogamy's sake is infringement of free will. If two (or more) people want to be together, then they are, as simple as that. The conviction to commit to someone should come from within, not from anywhere else. I feel that laws and societal judgments are archaic in this regard.
Having children is another subject. In this world, I seldom see really good reasons for having children. Then the children are born into dysfunctional families of varying degrees. I suppose this is a way to generate catalyst or process "karmic" relationships and issues. But it seems to me that when we have more, and significant, life extension, there will be a better opportunity to learn about self, without the complications of this kind of enmeshment.
Yes, I do think that Ra is observing from a distance not judging.
As a wanderer who is not interested in procreating, I can see how these kinds of parent-child relationships contribute to karma. People get into the tribalist thinking ("my family first a who cares about the rest of society"). I leads to a certain kind of dysfunction in society as a whole where the concept of "fitting in" becomes the norm because you are part of a family or group. It also allows people to become ignorant to the way the world works because they get too busy to with work (which tires them out) and catering to their children (which also tires them out), and then trying to fit all of this into the expectations of family and a sub-section of society (also takes a lot of energy). So when you go further up in the power structure the political or economic elites can see that you are too busy to ask too many questions, i.e. you've been "dumbed down". They have money to pay for other people to raise their children and clean their homes. You have school fees, mortgage payments or rent to keep you motivated to work. So they can do whatever they want secure in the knowledge that you are not going to question inequality or exploitation because they don't have the time to look up what's going on behind the scenes or ponder the meaning of life. And if you do, it's going to be whining on Twitter or Facebook which is mostly inconsequential.
Maybe there's a better way to go out about this, but I haven't seen that much of it.
Just my observation about power relations on Planet Earth.
RE: [split] Adversary relationships, and the mated pair - Ymarsakar - 04-17-2021
I see the Ra collectice incarnated here on earth.
Their objectivity is more a trait of mid or late 6th density power bouses.
RE: [split] Adversary relationships, and the mated pair - jafar - 04-24-2021
One of the common pattern that can be observed is that.
The structure of 'marriage contract' seems to follow the pattern of paternalistic societies, where in 'women' are seen as among the 'property' owned / controlled by men.
The opinion above is partly due to my observation and fascination on one of the last remaining matriarchal society, namely "Mosuo" society in China.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_l9D7tEixc
There's no marriage in Mosuo society, thus no divorce, they don't even have any word with meanings similar to "Father" in their language. Any children will never asked or even wondered "who is my father".
Female is the head of the family, it is the female who choose which male that they want to 'mate' with, there's no obligation towards the male that he should not mate with any other female and vice versa. The children (regardless of their gender) will always be regarded as a member of the mother's family.
Thus the hypothesis that "Free Love Exchange" will resulted in disaster might actually be not correct.
RE: [split] Adversary relationships, and the mated pair - Dtris - 04-24-2021
(04-24-2021, 06:32 AM)jafar Wrote: One of the common pattern that can be observed is that.
The structure of 'marriage contract' seems to follow the pattern of paternalistic societies, where in 'women' are seen as among the 'property' owned / controlled by men.
The opinion above is partly due to my observation and fascination on one of the last remaining matriarchal society, namely "Mosuo" society in China.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_l9D7tEixc
There's no marriage in Mosuo society, thus no divorce, they don't even have any word with meanings similar to "Father" in their language. Any children will never asked or even wondered "who is my father".
Female is the head of the family, it is the female who choose which male that they want to 'mate' with, there's no obligation towards the male that he should not mate with any other female and vice versa. The children (regardless of their gender) will always be regarded as a member of the mother's family.
Thus the hypothesis that "Free Love Exchange" will resulted in disaster might actually be not correct.
Iirc there is a LOO session where Ra mentions that there were matriarchal societies in the past which were quite large. Or Maybe that was a different source.
There is certainly more than one method of mating and raising children that will result in a functional society. The relative benefits and drawbacks of each is a relatively unexplored space. We do have some data on the functional benefits of marriage vs the dysfunctional system the west currently has.