Bring4th

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...=1&ss=1#16

Quote:31.16 Questioner: I just need to know then if this works through the racial memory and infects the entire population in some way?

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.

they came to this point by the quotes preceding the above quote, regarding the sexual orange ray blockages of those of 3rd reich :

Quote:31.14 Questioner: I was thinking more of the possibility of the Orion group influencing certain members of the Third Reich who I have read reports of having sexual gratification from the observation of the gassing and killing of entities in the gas chambers.

Ra: I am Ra. We shall repeat these entities had the potential for sexual energy buildup. The choice of stimulus is certainly the choice of the entity. In the case of which you speak, these entities were strongly polarized orange ray, thus finding the energy blockage of power over others, the putting to death being the ultimate power over others; this then being expressed in a sexual manner, though solitary.

In this case the desire would continue unabated and be virtually unquenchable.

You will find, if you observe the entire spectrum of sexual practices among your peoples, that there are those who experience such gratification from domination over others either from rape or from other means of domination. In each case this is an example of energy blockage which is sexual in its nature.

Category: Sexual Energy Transfer

31.15 Questioner: Would the Orion group be able, then, to impress on entities this orange ray effect? Is this the way that this came about? If we go back to the beginning of third-density there must be a primal cause of this.

Ra: I am Ra. The cause of this is not Orion. It is the free choice of your peoples. This is somewhat difficult to explain. We shall attempt.

The sexual energy transfers and blockages are more a manifestation or example of that which is more fundamental than the other way about. Therefore, as your peoples became open to the concepts of bellicosity and the greed of ownership, these various distortions then began to filter down through the tree of mind into body complex expressions, the sexual expression being basic to that complex. Thus these sexual energy blockages, though Orion influenced and intensified, are basically the product of the being-ness chosen freely by your peoples.

This will be the final question unless we may speak further upon this question to clarify, or answer any short queries before we close.

Category: Sexual Energy Transfer

This basically says that marriages as opposed to free acceptance of and giving to other individuals are a manifestation of the orange ray ownership blockages/distortions that were chosen by entities in the past, and then, these affect/taint entire societal mind through shared racial memories.

Verrrrrrrrry interesting.

These quotes are interesting and a pretty central part of the Ra material.

In a part about earth history, Ra describes how the situation of these sort of planetary orange ray blockage first came about:

Quote:22.5 Questioner: Can I assume then that this drastic drop in average life span from seven hundred years to less than one hundred years in length during this second 25,000 years was caused by an intensification of a lack of service to others?

Ra: I am Ra. This is in part correct. By the end of the second cycle, the Law of Responsibility had begun to be effectuated by the increasing ability of entities to grasp those lessons which there are to be learned in this density. Thus, entities had discovered many ways to indicate a bellicose nature, not only as tribes or what you call nations but in personal relationships, each with the other, the concept of barter having given way to the concept of money; also, the concept of ownership having won ascendancy over the concept of nonownership on an individual or group basis.

Each entity then was offered many more subtle ways of demonstrating either service toward others or service to self with the distortion of the manipulation of others. As each lesson was understood, those lessons of sharing, of giving, of receiving in free gratitude—each lesson could be rejected in practice.

Without demonstrating the fruits of such learn/teaching the life span became greatly reduced, for the ways of honor/duty were not being accepted.

(Side Note): Ra is not socialist. In fact, Ra equates socialism with fascism:

Quote:65.7 Questioner: How would conventional warfare offer the opportunities for seeking and service?

Ra: I am Ra. The possibility/probabilities exist for situations in which great portions of your continent and the globe in general might be involved in the type of warfare which you might liken to guerrilla warfare. The ideal of freedom from the so-called invading force of either the controlled fascism or the equally controlled social common ownership of all things would stimulate great quantities of contemplation upon the great polarization implicit in the contrast between freedom and control. In this scenario which is being considered at this time/space nexus the idea of obliterating valuable sites and personnel would not be considered an useful one. Other weapons would be used which do not destroy as your nuclear arms would. In this on-going struggle the light of freedom would burn within the mind/body/spirit complexes capable of such polarization. Lacking the opportunity for overt expression of the love of freedom, the seeking for inner knowledge would take root aided by those of the Brothers and Sisters of Sorrow which remember their calling upon this sphere.

I think the strongest case is the Ra is probably some form of anarchist, this is also supported by the Confederation, as Confederations are anarchist associations because they have no central control.
(/side note)

To get back to the original point, people became more bellicose and greedy. This bellicosity eventually became expressed in sexual relationships, that is, they became ways of demonstrating ownership and power rather than relationships for free love.

The idea of marriage for love is a very new idea. The idea of love in the middle ages was "courtly love", basically an adulterous relationship in which a married man courted a woman who was probably also married.

People married in order to consolidate power between families.
People married because if they didn't everyone would look down on you.
Women married in order to improve their status.
Men married in order to have children to carry on the family, work, etc.

The concept of love and marriage just had very little intersection. Hence love was courtly love, outside of marriage.

This is an interesting example of the quite confused and hypocritical societal mores of this planet. Love as a concept existed to a certain extent, but in a context which is not entirely pure, and somewhat tainted.

Nowadays, marriage, of course, is changing. While there is still a massive bias in the way the government treats married vs. non-married people, there is no longer the societal pressures. Thus, more marriages will be for love. But this is an extremely recent development and the inertia of thousands of years does not fade quickly.

I would say, Ra is criticizing our very hypocritical institution of marriage,
but one thing that is very clear to me is that Ra is not criticising monagamy.

Quote:83.3 Questioner: Thank you. I’m going to ask a rather long, complex question and I would request that the answer to each portion of this question be given if there was a significant difference prior to the veil than following the veil so that I can get an idea of how what we experience now is used for better polarization.
...
Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, let us establish that both before and after the veil the same conditions existed in time/space; that is, the veiling process is a space/time phenomenon.
...
In the third density entities are attempting to learn the ways of love. If it can be seen that all are one being it becomes much more difficult for the undisciplined personality to choose one mate and, thereby, initiate itself into a program of service. It is much more likely that the sexual energy will be dissipated more randomly without either great joy or great sorrow depending from these experiences.
...

Quote:84.22 Questioner: Did most Logoi plan, before the veil, to create a system of random sexual activity or the specific pairing of entities for specific 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.

May we ask if there may be any brief queries before we leave this instrument?

Ra does not say that promiscuity, friends with benefits, serial dating, are negative,

But that monogamous relationships allow one to polarize more rapidly because they require a great deal more discipline and commitment to enter into them, as a "program of service", and that the other, less strong types of relationships, lack that.

Monagamy, of course, does not require marriage, and arguing about marriage, being a governmental institution, of course only brings us into the realm of politics from which very little understanding can come about.

(12-10-2010, 06:14 PM)jivatman Wrote: [ -> ]The ideal of freedom from the so-called invading force of either the controlled fascism or the equally controlled social common ownership of all things would stimulate great quantities of contemplation upon the great polarization implicit in the contrast between freedom and control.

there is a catch there. it says, controlled fascism, or the equally controlled social common ownership of all things. it does not equate these things to each other.

indeed, ra says they see too much order as something inherently negative. this reflects in their statement above - if, rules and regulations go over a certain extent in social common ownership of all things, it becomes too orderly, and in Ra's perspective, negative. because, they see too much order as negative in core.

this is recoupled with their statement stating that the rise of concept of ownership, over freely giving (along with other factors) had led to a decrease in the lifespan of the entities. therefore, coupled with other statements that paint ownership concept as something pertaining to orange ray possessive blockage, this makes the concept of ownership as something undesirable in positive path.

Quote:I think the strongest case is the Ra is probably some form of anarchist, this is also supported by the Confederation, as Confederations are anarchist associations because they have no central control.

not having a central control doesnt make something unorderly or disorganized, leave aside anarchic. federation means the grouping of more than one unit, and each unit may have their own internal format. these agree and function upon commonly accepted rules and formats as a federation. this may not interfere with the entities' internal formats and rules and laws, but, it doesnt change the fact that, for acting together, there needs to be various formats agreed upon. else, if it was anarchy, there wouldnt be any confederation, federation, or any need for a federation or confederation. there would be just anarchy.

Quote: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.

and most ironically, this is one of the errors in the plan of this logos - monogamy is something that is inherently a trait of higher densities too, just like various other concepts. it actually is not suitable with 3d and its nature. you cant force something before its time.

Quote:there is a catch there. it says, controlled fascism, or the equally controlled social common ownership of all things. it does not equate these things to each other.

indeed, ra says they see too much order as something inherently negative. this reflects in their statement above - if, rules and regulations go over a certain extent in social common ownership of all things, it becomes too orderly, and in Ra's perspective, negative. because, they see too much order as negative in core.

this is recoupled with their statement stating that the rise of concept of ownership, over freely giving (along with other factors) had led to a decrease in the lifespan of the entities. therefore, coupled with other statements that paint ownership concept as something pertaining to orange ray possessive blockage, this makes the concept of ownership as something undesirable in positive path.

I agree with this, especially the point that too much order is negative.
I suppose what was unclear was I said they were equal, wheras Ra says they are equal in the degree of central control possible - a point made by classical liberals and anarchists.

Quote:not having a central control doesnt make something unorderly or disorganized, leave aside anarchic. federation means the grouping of more than one unit, and each unit may have their own internal format. these agree and function upon commonly accepted rules and formats as a federation. this may not interfere with the entities' internal formats and rules and laws, but, it doesnt change the fact that, for acting together, there needs to be various formats agreed upon. else, if it was anarchy, there wouldnt be any confederation, federation, or any need for a federation or confederation. there would be just anarchy.

I am referring to anarchism the political form. Examples of this are prewar Spain and depression era-America. Both experiments were extremely sucessful in the degree of freedom and prosperity they produced relative to neighbors, but where ultimately crushed by state powers who rightly viewed them as a serious challenge to their authority.

Anarchism is a free association of individuals without central control, a confederation is an association of governments without central control.

It is in this manner only that they are analogous.

Quote:and most ironically, this is one of the errors in the plan of this logos - monogamy is something that is inherently a trait of higher densities too, just like various other concepts. it actually is not suitable with 3d and its nature. you cant force something before its time.

Free will is paramount though.

If people are marrying because of societal pressure, I doubt they will express the higher aspects of it, and they may indeed be better off being promiscuity.

but monagamy is nevertheless useful for more advanced individuals who enter into it freely.

I see marriage as being a property of the yellow ray. It's a social construct that wouldn't be able to form unless the entities paticipating had a sense of self. What jivatman says right after his side note in post #3 I think is very well put and reinforces this idea.

Although it's not contained to the yellow ray specifically. (Thankfully I think, because it allows for more freedom in catalyst production.) It certainly is possible for marriages to contain elements of the yellow, even red, or hopefully green rays. But I think it originated as a framework for entities to climb from yellow to green.

(12-10-2010, 09:17 PM)jivatman Wrote: [ -> ]I am referring to anarchism the political form. Examples of this are prewar Spain and depression era-America. Both experiments were extremely sucessful in the degree of freedom and prosperity they produced relative to neighbors, but where ultimately crushed by state powers who rightly viewed them as a serious challenge to their authority.

Anarchism is a free association of individuals without central control, a confederation is an association of governments without central control.

It is in this manner only that they are analogous.

i dont think taking examples from history, especially near history, would work for analyzing this. the cultural, economical and social situations in near history has been always mixed ones, and there has never been any kind of state at which one could examine the efficiency of different methods and systems in their pure form. add to this the detrimental effect of private interests.

depression era america was a situation of crashdown in a capitalist hierarchical economy. and what has only brought the situation around has been the programs of fdr. ironically, all countries got out of 20s depression in the same way - by implementing mass public projects.

if prewar spain, you mean civil war spain or the period earlier, i would say that no argument of freedom or prosperity could be made for that period. people were assassinating each other, destroying stuff, and there was general turmoil.

Quote:Anarchism is a free association of individuals without central control, a confederation is an association of governments without central control.

the governments would still have central control.

and a confederation, would act as its own controlling entity, with the participation of different governments, based on the agreed-on rules and principles.

so, there is still control even in confederation. the 'centralization' part is moot - the confederation may elect to set up a center to coordinate all this process, or, it may not. still, the confederation would act together, deciding on agreed-on principles.

Quote:Free will is paramount though.

If people are marrying because of societal pressure, I doubt they will express the higher aspects of it, and they may indeed be better off being promiscuity.

but monagamy is nevertheless useful for more advanced individuals who enter into it freely.

my approach was in more deeper levels.

monogamous conditions, apparently, arise from the increased purification of entities in higher densities. in these densities, entities' spirit manifests increasingly fully, putting forth their particular nature and preferences and vibrations specific to any entity. this, in turn, would make entities naturally prefer to be with entities which complement their nature. add to this the fact that as densities go forth, entities will become more refined and sensitive. so it makes long term matchups an inevitability.

but, in 3rd d, situation is not as such. entity is newly 3d, or late 3d, or in between. its preferences, biases coming from spirit, its spirit is not manifesting in a definitive manner. these distortions are not easily noticeable or usable by the entity. and, it can be said that it doesnt even matter much, for the entity, consciously or consciously, yet at that point.

so, matching with other entities becomes easy. then again, this is also the true nature of 3rd d - 'there are other entities than me' -> the entities are needing to be in multiples, in many, crowded societies, and interact with each other, therefore developing and refining their own biases and preferences.

what happens when you match up entities for prolonged durations ? you take out or reduce the 'interacting with other entities' part greatly -> therefore, reducing the experience that happens in 3rd d.

all things should happen in their due time. a preference cannot be forced or created or make come up to surface, before its time. if, monogamous situations are inherent to higher densities, that means they are inherent to higher densities. it is illogical to attempt carrying it to a lower density.

this is my angle.

actually there are more stuff in that parallel - the 'unity', 'oneness' concepts are THE meaning and emphasis of 6d, but, this logos has emphasized that in all its creation over anything else (oneness) and then, apparently, attempted to carry it over to 3d.

this is way over the head of 3d entities. even if they understood it, there is no way they can actually manifest that understanding, because it requires 6d energies. and 6d energies in 3d, is a concept way off. so, the entity understands and accepts the concept and maybe even manifests a measure of understanding by trace amounts of 6d energy manifested in pyramids, temples, meditation, this that, but, when going out to daily world, easily forgets, ignores, suspends those understandings. because the energies to manifest them are not found out there, and it cant work. this may be what's underlying the issue Ra describes by saying entities were accepting the concepts they were given in training, but, ignoring them when they return to their daily lives.

Marriage is like an affirmation of personal insecurity, you don't think your partner would voluntarily stay with you so you create legal contract with undesirable financial and social ramifications of being broken. Its also a way for our societies - which are based alot on free will infringement - to stay stable as without marriage we'd have alot more single parents, less children, and probably less emotional difficulties in life resulting in less spending on useless things which is so central to our economies.

It makes sense thats an orange ray blockage because you treat your partner as an object or possession. This is true of most romantic relationship but marriages even more so.

Pairing off/marriage is not a distortion pressed upon us by new society. There are regions where tribes have gone by undisturbed by our societal rules and regulations and what is found is people still pair off. They have their own way of expressing interest and showing affection and finally choosing a mate. That they will stay true to that mate forever is a different story, as tribes differ. I saw one show about a small tribe in Thailand in which people were paired off after a certain age, but they could still indulge their sexual advances with others freely within the community.

As far as "single parents" are concerned, that is something that has always happened, it's nothing new. Wars are foremost one of the biggest separators of families and they have been around forever. Don't forget how many wars led men out of their own lands never to be seen again as the travel back would have been much too difficult a journey to take alone. And the few men that made it alive at the other end of the battles usually took in a new wife/lover at each stop along the way. This in fact creating more children.

Another societal breaker of families would be businesses, a fisherman for example would be gone for weeks-months. Traders could be gone for years before they made it back to their home and family. Ambassadors could be gone for decades according to their governmental contracts.

I think in the end one of the conditions that a lot of us can be guilty of is of staying still. I don't think mankind was made to be still in one position. If we really need to learn about everything and anything we have to move around this vast world and learn from experiences that are out there to be met. The social structure now makes that next to impossible with so many borders and social stumbles keeping everyone from uprooting and moving around this globe.

(12-10-2010, 01:59 PM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]This basically says that marriages as opposed to free acceptance of and giving to other individuals are a manifestation of the orange ray ownership blockages/distortions that were chosen by entities in the past, and then, these affect/taint entire societal mind through shared racial memories.

I think it's important to differentiate between the term marriage, as is commonly used denoting a legal arrangement, from the term marriage, when referring to a relationship based on free acceptance/giving.

ie. the institution of marriage, as a construct, as opposed to any given relationship.

Thus, not every marriage relationship is based on orange ray blockages/distortions.

It is the institution of marriage itself, ie. the contract of marriage, that Ra is referring to; as opposed to a love/acceptance-based relationship that might blossom from within said contract.

Whereas the necessity for marriage as a construct in our society indicates that society, as a whole, views it as something that is required, to impose rules on an other-self, that does not preclude individual couples (who happen to be legally married) from enjoying a healthy relationship relatively free of such blockages, regardless of whether within or outside of the legal construct.

---

(12-10-2010, 06:14 PM)jivatman Wrote: [ -> ]I would say, Ra is criticizing our very hypocritical institution of marriage,
but one thing that is very clear to me is that Ra is not criticising monagamy.

Agreed. This is an important point.

In fact, Ra seems to indicate that a mutually committed monogamous relationship offers a strong potential for higher energy exchange.

(12-10-2010, 06:14 PM)jivatman Wrote: [ -> ]But that monogamous relationships allow one to polarize more rapidly because they require a great deal more discipline and commitment to enter into them, as a "program of service", and that the other, less strong types of relationships, lack that.

Monagamy, of course, does not require marriage

Agreed.

I find it curious that some of my friends who subscribe to fundamentalist Christianity, consider sex before marriage the ultimate 'sin,' often preferring that teens avoid any sexual contact at all (even kissing) until marriage.

In many of these cases, the young people end up stuck in a loveless marriage, but it is considered 'acceptable' because of the legal contract.

While, in contrast, those who have not legally married, but have genuine love and commitment to each other, are considered 'living in sin.'

That's so twisted!

Thanks to the hippie love generation, these outdated notions are no longer considered the norm, and now it is common for young couples to test the water by living together before getting married. Yet, the fundamentalist movement is working very hard to keep such controlling mechanisms in place.

(12-11-2010, 02:19 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks to the hippie love generation, these outdated notions are no longer considered the norm, and now it is common for young couples to test the water by living together before getting married. Yet, the fundamentalist movement is working very hard to keep such controlling mechanisms in place.

I'm very grateful for the changes the 60's brought to American culture and to the world including the example you gave. But I wouldn't worry about fundamentalism, no matter which way the world turns post-WikiLeaks one thing that most people in developed countries agree on, even those in power, is that fundamentalism is undesirable.

I am also of the understanding that it can be an imbalance regarding attachment, ownership and dependance. People often give their own power away to their partner, or feel powerless without them. Others view their partner as their property. This is a one to one (orange) ray imbalance.

With regards to Aaron's remark and yellow ray, arranged marriages are both orange and yellow blockages, as the social pressure can (and often does) remove the individuals free will.

Other than those two perspectives, one can see marriage as a limiting factor to others; each person limits aspects of love to only one person, and hence denies others of this service.

One would imagine that in 4D and above, there are no such limitations :¬)

(12-13-2010, 12:19 PM)Namaste Wrote: [ -> ]One would imagine that in 4D and above, there are no such limitations :¬)

Does it means that everybody lives with each other and mating with everybody?

Monica, didn't you mention somewhere that you remember some of the past lifes in other densitities, and you remember that you were living in clans where everybody raised children together etc? Does it means that there was also sexual energy transfer occuring with everybody?

(01-14-2011, 09:25 AM)Ankh Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-13-2010, 12:19 PM)Namaste Wrote: [ -> ]One would imagine that in 4D and above, there are no such limitations :¬)

Does it means that everybody lives with each other and mating with everybody?

I would imagine it's an accepted path to take, if that what you so desire.

The notion was more related to the conditional love that marriage entails. "I will love this one person unconditionally." Whereas fourth density is that of unconditional love to all, which would suggest loving all other selves in all ways.