19.17

[rva_jeremy]

Hello, I am new to this forum. I want to ask about this session.

19.17 Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates their momentum toward the chosen path of service to self?

Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic.

All these experiences are available. It is free will of each entity which chooses the form of play, the form of pleasure.

What does this mean? Isn't the Law of One an examination of the pervesity of nature?

Well, Jacko, that's a judgment call that's up to you, I suppose.  I'd also suggest it depends on what you mean by "perversity". 

Here's a few definitions of "perverse":

• wrong or different in a way that others feel is strange or offensive
  
• deliberately deviating from what is regarded as normal, good, or proper
  
• willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary
  
• turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.
  

 
Speaking in the broadest way, the Law of One -- uniquely amongst many spiritual philosophies -- recognizes the negative path as a valid part of the Creation.  In that sense, yes, the Law of One can be seen as encompassing this examination.  But that's a much broader sense than most of us use, since usually when we're discussing "The Law of One" we're talking about the Ra material, which came from a service-to-others entity and not a service-to-self entity.  This acceptance of the negative, service-to-self path as part of the Creation is instrumental to the positive path's embrace of unity.

However, since the negative path emphasizes separation over unity, it would not be correct to characterize the positive path's emphasis on unity as somehow equivalent to, or overlapping with, the negative path's philosophy.  The reason for this is that the consequences of the unity attitude lead to different actions and ways of conceiving of self and other than the negative path.  This is the critical point: that while service-to-others folks accept the service-to-self path as part of the Creation and part of ourselves, we do not choose to limit ourselves to the kinds of separation that is required for the negative philosophy.  It is precisely this limitation that leads to an emphasis on separation of self against self, a lack of acceptance of otherselves as self, and therefore the kinds of bellicose, manipulative, and disrespectful behaviors that one could sometimes call "perverse".  What we identify as negative is a result of a way of conceiving of oneself's relationship to the Creation, and one can accept negative folks without sharing that conception.

In addition to this general point, I think there's something more to be said about the word "perverse".  There is an aspect to the negative path that appears to find great power and satisfaction in rearranging the Creation into harsh, dissonant, grisly, and obscene configurations.  These "perversities" are part of the Creation and part of ourselves.  It is not that service-to-others folks reject these "perverse" configurations as somehow unacceptable.  It is that they do not emphasize them to the exclusion of the rest of Creation.  The positive path uses a "lens" that emphasizes principles of balance, acceptance, and love.  Conversely, the attitudes, behaviors, and philosophies that arise from embracing the "perversities of nature" naturally attend a view of the Creation that emphasizes separateness and rejection of others, and this is what I believe those of Ra are addressing in the passage you excerpted.

Hope that helps!  Great question.