Competition, survival, and polarity

[Navaratna]

I still would like a response to what someone thinks of adopting a person to live in your house for free. I mean if you're going to say that having a job is selfish because you took it from someone, if you're accepting a lower level job to benefit someone else--even though you let someone have the higher rank/business--lets say even with having the lower-paying job you still afford your own place..well hey what if you're not using that place you live in to benefit someone else? if its only for you then :O! Service to self!

If you don't adopt someone even though you could then you're not a completely ideal service-to-others person, right? Those people that you're getting over on, or let have the CEO position of the company/leading ahead of you in business won't generally do it either unless they're in a relationship with the person they invite to live in their home with whether they're male or female.

This is assuming someone lives on their own so that's it's not an infringement on whoever you have to share your property with.

This tells me these things aren't as clear cut as they seem. There are different levels and many different situations determining how self-servicing other other-servicing everyone is.

Here's a response to your hypothetical thought experiment. 

I don't think anyone is saying that having a job is selfish because you took it from someone. Taking in a homeless person is definitely a service-to-others polarizing action, but not doing so isn't depolarizing in most instances as you are not directly responsible for that person's situation (though in a sense we are all responsible for our fellow humans, more on that in a second).

There are, however, underlying socio-economic causes for homelessness that are a byproduct of how our society is organized. The fact that some people can amass billions (trillions soon for Mr. Bezos) while others live in abject poverty is a feature, not a bug. CEOs and the like get rich through the exploitation of labor and that requires them to have bargaining power over their employees so they can make them work long hours at low wages to maximize profits. To achieve this requires a reservoir of unemployed and desperate people so that the boss can say "shape up or we'll give your job to someone else. You should be grateful for your job so you can afford to keep food on the table," and so on. In a society that took care of it's own none of this would be an issue, the social group could provide housing to your hypothetical person rather than having the burden be on the individual, it would be a shared burden. Our society is not organized like that, however, and as members of society we all bear some responsibility for that,

Competition is not a bad thing in and of itself (I think in the example of sports, for instance, there is nothing wrong with honing your skills and achieving excellence), but in a game that is rigged so those who take advantage of others rise to the top are certainly on a path of self service. Since sports are organized as a business, they falls victim to this as well, but it's not so much the athletes who are to blame here as the sponsors, owners, governing bodies etc. I mean just look at all the scandals and controversies the International Olympic Committee get up to.

No one is perfectly service-to-others, and luckily no one needs to be. All you have to do is focus your own individual life and the things you can change and try to be as good of a person as you can. I'm not a fan of reducing it to numbers, but Ra states on 51% service-to-others orientation is required.

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and wisdom to know the difference."


And a little side note about free will, I don't think it's possible for anyone incarnated on Earth to infringe on the free will of others. We're all here by soul contract and we're all in it together. I think the talk of infringement in the Ra material pertains more to disincarnate entities, that's why there's a quarantine.

Fair enough. A thought I often have about people though is as sad as it is, if there are no standards to live in a certain region or attend an event you see how awkward things can get pretty quickly.

Rich people enjoy their rich neighborhoods being exclusive because they think it grants them safety. The enormous cost of living in a wealthy neighborhood often makes it so that people are too busy working or generally have a certain level of mental fitness to be organized enough to keep a job with a high salary to live in such a place, or at the very least if they were to do something like try and steal they'd have a lot of money they'd be losing if they were held accountable for theft. There are a lot of variables. Of course there's an offer chance someone has their crazy relative move in for a week for example but it's a buffer.

If we didn't have any rules on how people were organized you'd have the same groups of people like ratchet people who take advantage of section 8, or mentally ill people trying to set up permanent residence in places they otherwise wouldn't be able to live in--suddenly start trying to because theyd want to be around people they could steal from or beg from. People try to anyway like the people trying to live on the streets of Manhattan or claiming to be refugees so they can go to Europe for example. But it's a deterrent. You see a good example of how Europe walls off a lot of the people trying to escape Africa/Mideast regions. "Keep the poor people out so our society doesn't turn in to dirt" and there's a political divide in people's attitudes around that.

It'd be nice if no one had to pay to live on Earth...a really dumb policy most people have little choice but to follow considering living in a car or in the wilderness isn't really much easier than swallowing it and getting a job but you'd encounter a tremendous level of resistance from a vast number of people with the material means to fight against that. The term "the projects" came from public housing projects for poor people where they were allowed to live without paying anything and it turned in to a dump.

If we had some place set aside where you didn't have to pay to live in...well ha I can think of a few places sort of famous for that even though they're unofficial and they're really not healthy environments anyone in their right mind would want to live at. People could set up free public showers and pods like the size of tanning beds so you could sleep without taking up too much property space...but they on't because the rich just don't feel like it yet they're the ones with the resources to create those things.

I've been reading in the news some places are trying to fight for the right for people to not get evicted from their residences [lost their job due to covid] and are trying to say to greedy landlords that in many countries make so much money that they just pay someone to sit in a leasing office doing virtually nothing all day.. "They can pay you back a years worth of rent in the future though! " like the tenants should grateful to have that option and I think oh...well maybe that's a good example of why humans actually do deserve the apocalypse right now. I'm just joking but wow..can we collectively drop this attitude that landowners are more important than everyone else in society for just a minute? I guess not.