The most mysterious phrase of the Ra contact

[Ohr Ein Sof]

Many thanks to Tadeus and onLIKE_7 for enriching and deepening the debate. The experience of onLIKE_7 (sexual alternation) is particularly fascinating, because we can then see how, when one sexual polarity is dominant in the conscious, the other systematically passes into the unconscious. Having said that, onLIKE_7 poses the question of some form of indecision regarding gender in the incarnation, which will soon lead me (in a new thread?) to a fundamental new question that I have been working on for a while.

We have thus come to ask the question of the raison d'être of gender in space-time, when it seems a priori so easy to be neutral or androgynous in the third density of time-space.

And thanks to Patrick for reminding us about points 84.22 and 87.28 of Contact Ra.

But now I have two problems:

1 - Although we are circling around, we still don't have a serious answer to my basic question regarding Ra's mysterious phrase.
2 - Point 87.28 for its part, although it seems to give us a radical answer concerning the archetypes of the masculine and the feminine, is "much" less clear than it seems a priori when we analyze it in detail.

There are indeed two totally different interpretations of point 87.28 (When the veiling process was accomplished, to the male polarity was attracted the Matrix of the Mind and to the female, the Potentiator of the Mind;..):

Interpretation a) The Matrix of the mind belongs to the male (and only him), it is according to Ra the male consciousness, and the Potentiator of the mind belongs to the female (and she only), it is according to Ra the female unconscious, in relation to the roots of the mind behind the veil.

But then, would this interpretation mean that the woman has no matrix of the mind, and therefore no consciousness?
And when we refer to Jung, with the female unconscious of the man (the anima), and the male unconscious of the woman (the animus), where are the correspondents in this interpretation? What would be the potentiator of the woman's mind this time?

Do you realize the huge effects of such an interpretation?

Interpretation b) The Matrix of mind, consciousness, is male "in nature" (of male principle), and the Mind Potentiator, the unconscious, is female "in nature" (of female principle).

It is not at all the same thing, because it would mean here that all humans (thus of both sexes) have a Matrix "and" a Potentiator of the mind. What the following points seem to confirm absolutely:

79.21 Q The first change made then for this extension of free will was to make the information or make the communication between the Matrix and Potentiator of the Mind relatively unavailable, one to the other, during the incarnation. Is this correct?
Ra. We would perhaps rather term the condition as relatively more mystery-filled than relatively unavailable.
79.22 Q Well, the idea then was to create some type of veil between Matrix and Potentiator. Is this correct?
Ra. This is correct.
79.23 Q This veil then occurs between what we now call the conscious and the unconscious mind. Is this correct?
Ra. This is correct.

And all the more so that all babies (therefore of both sexes) would have a Matrix and a Mind Potentiator, as this quote seems also to confirm to us:

92.9 Q : I would like to attempt an analogy of the first archetype in that when a baby is first born and enters this density of experience, I am assuming, then, that the Matrix is new and undistorted, veiled from the Potentiator and ready for that which is to be experienced: the incarnation. Is this correct?
Ra. Yes.

There is thus between interpretation (a) and interpretation (b) a gap ten wider than the Red Sea!
But where is this divide mentioned in all the comments on Contact Ra?
Where did we put an alert about the very possible confusion?
How can we let the readers (us) of the Law of One wander and get lost between the two shores of this red sea (quite a symbol)?
Will anyone tell us that nobody noticed the difference, or even worse that it does not matter ?!

Can we realize the enormity of the scandal that would be "in the world", with the interpretation a), the day the Law of One was shared more widely?

There are thus, throughout the contact Ra and its interpretations, below what seems very clear a priori, immense ambiguities concerning the two sexes and their archetypes. These archetypes in fact, as they are commented on, seem to "set in stone" (87.28 in particular) realities which are very fluid, such as for example that experienced by onLIKE_7.

I presume for my part that these ambiguities could come from a "maschist" Tarot which comes to us from the period where the Law of One was perverted in Egypt, in particular after the reign of Akhenaten, where the pharaoh was more and more considered as a "dominant male" (STS), and where women have had less and less access to initiation, limiting their function to the sole unconscious of the couple and of society. This just as we know today that the Yi King, too, has been perverted throughout imperial dynasties which have increasingly promoted male dominance and service to Self. It was Cyrille Javary, a French orientalist who discovered, analyzed and reported it in his completely renewed translation of Yi King in 2002 (French title: Yi Jing, Le livre des Changements. I don't know the equivalent English title).

And these continuous ambiguities explain why I wanted the mysterious phrase of Ra to be made explicit to us. Because in my opinion, it sums up the whole problem of this ambiguity, at the same time as it contains in itself a potential of illumination which could completely renew the traditional interpretations on sexual polarization in the Law of One; interpretations that we take from the early 80s, still very covered by a paradigm of male domination that was imposed on everyone, logically including Carla and Don.

Wait! What?
The conscious mind is attracted to the masculine principle bc its what could be considered 'ACTIVE rather than receptive as is the subconscious mind. One is logical and objective and the other intuitive and subjective. What is so hard to accept about this? The moon is receptive, the sun is giving. The archetype for them would be consciousness/subconsciousness or male/active, female/stillness.