Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think Ra's take on Homosexuality is idiotic

[Jade]

Hi Chandlersdad,

Firstly, I want to say, I'm sorry that Scott's interpretation has upset you so much. To be honest, I've only listened to a little bit of his videos, but they infuriated me too so I haven't since.

This may be a quite minor point, but it interests me. As someone who obviously knows the Ra Law of One material very well, what  infuriated you about Scott Mandelker's presentation of the material? This would help my discernment for those who purport to represent the LOO Material. This also includes David Wilcock, who I seem to find leaves me with a desire to take a shower (with plenty of soap) after listening/watching him. That is obviously purely subjective and I have not yet pinned it down.  After listening to Scott, at times I want to strangle him. At other times I want to throw a cream pie in his face a la Three Stooges. I think with Scott it is a sense of feeling debased by his condescension. Of course, THIS is also subjective.

I don't mind sharing, I think I have before. When I entered my second layer of studying the archetypes, I went through a phase where I was avidly consuming everything else that had been written by others about the tarot per Ra's interpretations. Once I hit the limit of what I had to consume, I sought out Scott Mandelker because I knew he was regarded as proficient. I don't usually listen to/watch videos very often, I prefer to consume by reading. Anyway, I found his video discussing the Matrix of the Body - the Judgement card. It was the first card I felt was still a riddle to me. He started describing the symbolism on the card, but it seemed like it was the first time he'd ever thought about it - and mind you, it's one of the most symbolically complex cards, and Ra says the first step to learning the tarot is deciding upon a meaning for each of the symbols. Scott was basically like "Hmm, I think that looks like a ____, it might be a ____..." which, is what infuriated me, because he hadn't completed step one before he began lecturing on the tarot. I also at one point attempted to listen to his take on the Transformation of the Mind, and he made such a rudimentary mistake (in fact, the same one that David makes in his analysis) - that the imp is punishing the left hand path. Ra very specifically says that the imp is protecting the left hand path. So Scott spends 10 minutes talking about the imp getting retaliation on the left hand transformation of the mind, and then finally reads to the end of the session aloud and realizes that he had been wrong and just sort of quickly corrects himself. I personally think one should at least read the session through before they turn on their mic and begin a lecture...

My personal feeling from the ~2 hours or so I've listened to him, is that he is a great lecturer. But, as far as being able to interpret what Ra is saying "between the lines", I'm not sure he's quite there yet.

As for David Wilcock, you will find PLENTY of threads here discussing him in depth. There's even a current one discussing him and Corey Goode.

Anyway. Discernment is a good thing. I don't want anyone to substitute my thoughts for theirs. I just hold those who claim very publicly to be teachers of the Law of One to a much higher standard, which probably isn't fair. My frustration was that Scott couldn't teach me anything I didn't know on the specific subject I sought him for, which also isn't fair. I guess this is the Ra quote that comes to mind:

101.8 Questioner: Thank you. Could Ra give information on any way that we could give information to Greta Woodrew as to how to alleviate her present condition of swelling?

Ra: I am Ra. We may only suggest that the honor of propinquity to light carries with it the Law of Responsibility. The duty to refrain from contumely, discord, and all things which when unresolved within make way for workings, lies before the instrument of which you speak. This entity may, if it is desired by the scribe, share our comments upon the working of the latter entity.

The entity which is given constant and unremitting approval by those surrounding it suffers from the loss of the mirroring effect of those which reflect truthfully rather than unquestioningly. This is not a suggestion to reinstate judgment but merely a suggestion for all those supporting instruments; that is, support, be harmonious, share in love, joy, and thanksgiving, but find love within truth, for each instrument benefits from this support more than from the total admiration which overcomes discrimination.

If Scott calls homosexuals fags at some point during his lecture, this is hate speech (contumely). I'm really not trying to pass judgement, but that actually bothers me more than him just being unprepared for a presentation. If he's using the Law of One to perpetrate superiority over homosexuals, he's mistaken in the meaning behind the text.