Session 082

[Louisabell]

82.3 ▶ Questioner: Jim has a personal question which is not to be published. * He asks, “It seems that my balancing work has shifted from more peripheral concerns such as patience/impatience, to learning to open myself in unconditional love, to accepting my self as whole and perfect, and then to accepting my self as the Creator. If this is a normal progression of focus for balancing, wouldn’t it be more efficient, once this is discovered, for a person to work on the acceptance of self as Creator rather than work peripherally on the secondary and tertiary results of not accepting the self?”

Ra: I am Ra. The term efficiency has misleading connotations. In the context of doing work in the disciplines of the personality, in order to be of more full efficiency in the central acceptance of the self, it is first quite necessary to know the distortions of the self which the entity is accepting. Each thought and action needs must then be scrutinized for the precise foundation of the distortions of any reactions. This process shall lead to the more central task of acceptance. However, the architrave must be in place before the structure is builded.

Does the term "efficiency" have misleading connotations in and of itself? Or does "efficiency" have misleading connotations "in the context of doing work in the disciplines of the personality"?

For me, it could go either way, as Ra is not saying that the word efficiency itself has no application to the disciplines of the personality, as they go on to use the term "full efficiency" in the next statement. Ra could be responding directly to certain assumptions inherent in the question posed to them, such as the implication that certain steps appear superfluous and therefore can be missed. Perhaps Ra is saying that the question itself was arrived at because of the "misleading connotations" of the word "efficiency", such as thinking that efficiency is simply the calculation of the shortest route from A to B or the fastest way to arrive at a destination.

One needs to understand what exactly the function and purpose of a subject is before assessing it for efficiencies. With the understanding that the mind/body/spirit complex is more of a tone poem than a machine (54.8), then it stands to reason that work in consciousness is more of an artform, a vocation, a dance or a courtship, than a raw calculation. Therefore assessing such work for efficiencies isn't so linear or straight-forward.

Using an analogy, one could think of a painter who has been commissioned to artistically depict a horse. The ways of completing such a task are endless. From taking 5 mins with a black marker to outline a stick figure of a horse, to working for a whole year to complete a floor-to-ceiling oil painting of the most epic horse masterpiece. Both versions will lead the observer to recognise a horse, but can they be compared to eachother in terms of efficiency? That's not possible without certain value judgements (i.e. do we value time spent, cost of resources used, emotional impact, originality, etc. etc.). These value judgements are too subjective to create any objective measure of efficiency. So always the creative vision must come first before efficiencies may be sought and discovered which helps one reach a creative goal.

That is why I think Ra uses the term "full efficiency", because a fuller realisation of selfhood is aided by a fuller efficiency of work, while perhaps a shallow realisation of selfhood is more aided by shallow efficiencies. The preference for either is always the perogative of the seeker.