In reading the Ra materials, I am struck that a basic question has not been asked. Ra seems to divide people into two camps, those who serve the self and those who serve others. This seems extremely simplistic to me, and antithetical to the harmonization of both extremes that occurs in the All. Adopting one of these extreme polarities is also antithetical to its own proscribed aims. For example, lets take a person who Ra would characterize as a negative path, service to self type. Most people like being admired and loved. It is a wonderful pleasure to feel that from others. Most people like having families and friends who love and are loyal to them. You cant be admired and loved for long however, if you are purely selfish and do nothing to benefit others. You will not have lovers, allies, friends, or family who are loyal to you, and you will not have people who will help you seek and achieve the power and joy you want, unless you are loyal to them and provide them value in kind. The most successful rulers are at least somewhat good ones as far as their subjects are concerned, because they have fewer enemies and more allies. Tyrants usually dont last, and it does not achieve the goal of serving oneself if you put yourself in a position where you will be exterminated and your bloodline erased because you have acted in ways deemed horrible by others. Out of pure self interest, it often benefits one to do good to others.
If your primary concern is serving others, you also have far more capability to do good for others if you first obtain power, which requires a strong ego. You also cannot love and serve everyone equally and still do right by your own family. You should care about your child’s success, and not the success of your child’s bully. Your financial resources should be used to advance your own kids, and not poor strangers in some other land. If you do not make this distinction, you are damaging your child, and being disloyal to that “other,” and are not serving them at all. The same in any relationship. To serve others in the most intense, passionate, loyal, and beneficial way, they have to be prioritized other the rest of humanity. A powerless, lukewarm peasant who only wants to serve others, but has no power because he has no self-ambition, doesnt do any good for anyone. A man with a love of power and his own ego can often do immense good if his self love and ego is connected to a moral bearing. The service to others ethic as elucidated in the law of one is often expressed by fanatical Christians, in the way they forgive and love their enemies. We have all heard stories of the Christian who forgives the man who raped and murdered their child and visits them in prison. Some would consider this a self sacrificing, saintly act, and a recognition of the All even in the rapist/murderer. I would consider it a gross act of betrayal and disservice to the dead kid and your other children, who you have failed miserably. The All created the world to differentiate and ultimately experience pleasure. This means doing for oneself and those closest to one first, and perhaps doing good for the greater whole secondarily. Both aims require strength and power to achieve. And loving that strength and power does not make one purely selfish. Likewise being self debasing and weak, with a lukewarm love for everyone, with no preference to those close to you, with a complete disregard for power, doesnt serve anyone else at all. The whole thing is very twisted and simplistic.
Truly successful people, who achieve the most both for themselves and/or others, usually have a balance of the two polarities. They have a lust for power, wealth, and recognition, and yet they achieve it through moral aims, and when possible, extend the work they do on behalf of themselves and their families to the greater whole, but not at the expense of their own. This path achieves the greatest service to self, and the greatest service to others, and for many is the most fulfilling. To say that such a person trying to achieve that balance is not sufficiently “polarized” to advance spiritually, doesnt seem correct. It seems to me to be little more than a repackaging of the Christian dichotomy between the self debasing slave morality of the Christian, juxtaposed with the entirely selfish evil bearing of the satanic elite. Real morality exists, and is a way to serve oneself and others and the same time. For a man on a more balanced spiritual path, there is both a time to heal and a time to kill. It depends on context. Serving oneself and serving others do not have to be polarized opposites, and it seems to me that usually both aims are realized best when harmonized.