Would you understand this as saying that loving-kindness is a default state of the One Infinite Creator ?
It seems to me that Ra is saying that our Logos is using kindness to demonstrate that the right-hand path is the most efficient. I wonder how exactly it accomplishes that demonstration?
Greetings to the self known as Patrick.
Looking around at a world infested with misery, one might wonder how the local Logos could have a bias towards mercy and kindness. Yet, in order for mercy to have meaning, it must be given in a context of misery, yes? So, the question follows, on balance, is there more misery or mercy in this particular set up?
In a 3D context it is very difficult, I would say, to define these terms and create a means of overall measurement. I expect most people’s evaluations would match their personal attitudes towards their life experiences.
However, when the consciousness becomes seated, not somewhere between the solar plexus and heart, but within the heart, the perspective changes deeply. Then the idea that mercy is all around us becomes abundantly evident. The accessibility of lovingkindness becomes clear, sometimes through other selves, but also through direct communion with Divinity. So, the misery of separation from Self is turned into profound mercy.
As this pertains to this particular logos, I can only say that one may get a sense of this internally as one becomes able to tune into this logos and share energy transfers.
Lastly, on a transient note, as I recall it, the term “lovingkindness” was invented by 16th century translators of the Bible into English. They invented this and various other words in an effort to bring across the special beauty of Divine love. And then they were locked in jail and some, like William Tyndale, executed. Painfully ironic, eh?
Indeed, our freewill seems to be total here. We are doing this to ourselves. Even if, as sub-sub-Logos, our innate bias “should” be kindness I suppose.
Excellent question. And your answer is even better. 
Indeed, I can only know my own personal experience and on balance, I experience much more kindness than misery. But maybe, as you said, that takes place in the eye of the beholder.
I was not aware of that. Thank you for mentioning it.
Oh, because they dared change what was considered direct words from God?
No, because they translated it into a vernacular language. But times have changed and this has since become acceptable.
In fact, the words have proved secondary to the first hand experience of Divinity. But this is a rare event, even into modern times.
It would be interesting to see this context in the original. Can you give a link to the book, chapter and line that was translated from Hebrew? Like here? HEBRAICA
Loving-kindness (or “lovingkindness”) is a term coined by Myles Coverdale for his Coverdale Bible of 1535,[1][2] as an English translation of the Hebrew word hesed (which appears in the Latin Vulgate as “misericordia”); in that text it is spelled “louinge kyndnesse”. It is also used in this sense in the American Standard Version and various other versions of the Bible.[3] It is sometimes associated with the Greek term agape.
I was hoping for a context from the Bible, but no, so no). Chesed (Hesed) in Kabbalah (Kabbalistic terms are quite common in the first books of the Bible) has a certain meaning of the emanation of the manifestation of God. Definitely not agape.
I would add that Hesed is one of the “stations” of manifestation in the world of Bria. This is to the question of why Ra at the first session talks about “One Original Thought” and about the body as a manifestation.
Patrick, this meditation-meditation hooked me) I’m thinking about the word kindness b loving-kindness as a non-native speaker. And yet, and I would make a distinction between the Logos (Word) and the Creator (Infinity), since these are different categories. For some reason, I remembered the first lines of Corpus Hermeticum
Would you understand this as saying that loving-kindness is a default state of the One Infinite Creator ?
No, the infinite creator is not “bias” towards one or the other.
In Ra’s quote, “more of aware of the loving kindness of the One Creator”
To me, this is like saying “oh, so you noticed the ‘nice’ side of my dad.”
So it is pointed at one aspect of the creator, not all of the creator. You also have to take in the fact that Ra is bias towards STO polarity, this also could influence their own distorted perception.
I hope that makes sense.
It seems to me that Ra is saying that our Logos is using kindness to demonstrate that the right-hand path is the most efficient. I wonder how exactly it accomplishes that demonstration?
Loving kindness also ties to mercy. “Mercy” is another way of saying “live and let live.”
Think of the “great flood.” <— not so kind, right?
It is inefficient to be an angry child destroying all of his Lego creations, just because he isn’t happy with it. So this child, keep doing it over and over, and over again from scratch, taking a much longer time.
On the “other hand,” if the child is “kind and loving,” he would look at his pile of … and still see it as beautiful and would “surgically” correct any errors along the way. So this child will not get angry, and destroy his Lego set. Thus not having to constantly “rebuilding.”
It is much more efficient to be kind, and loving, so your creation have opportunities to blossom,
I hope this commented in the ballpark of your questions Patrick.
Ra in my opinion was basically saying that this logos has a distortion towards kindness. One must understand that all but the original form of the creator, which cant be seen, understood, elucidated on directly, is the only non-distortion. The True undistorted state of the creator can only be. It can not be shared directly.
The distortion of kindness by this logos is caused like all distortions by confusion (free-will).
Hello Patrick <3
The Kindness of the One Infinite Creator has no boundaries or conditions, the love of the Creator if infinite and unconditional. We are all cells in this infinitely loving gargantuan beast that is the One Infinite Creator. Our loving humble messengers say Unity is informed with compassion by its very nature and we have the same nature. In our body, we have both polarities and unity. Is it within the scope of possibility to not be compassionate or kind towards our own body? Unless we are mentally ill 
My heart shudders with the knowledge that there are logos, sub logos and sub sub logos who do not have a bias towards kindness and compassion. This is a mystery of infinite depth that we who bear the mark of positive polarity within our hearts cannot fathom. I am also highly grateful towards our Logos to have this Bias towards kindness to make the polarization process more efficient but I question myself - Am I being selfish in finding one or the other path more efficient as well as aspect suitable to my liking? I have not plumbed into that depth yet.
If it is the design of this logos that the Right Hand Path is more efficient in this logos, it must be the case that the Left Hand Path folks are conspiring to overthrow the Director of this logos 
I thought the infinite creator was absolutely neutral with no bias.
The bias toward kindness is of our Logos.
Or does the Infinite Creator have kindness too?
Ra said that none of the Logos have a negative polarity. So if they don’t have a bias toward kindness, they are neutral.
Could you help me find this? this would be helpful. Thank you
How would one define the “mark of positive polarity?” without trials? and catalyst that eventually test their “words?”
I offer you this video of a channel called “Indigo Traveler.”
Let say you live in Haiti, and someone would like to rape you and hurt your body.
Are you going to fight? or just sprawl out and welcome the destruction?
Biggie smalls the rapper has a famous line, he said
“If you don’t know, now you know…”
If “you,” as the “infinite creator” lacks some insight or “experiences” of a certain part of creation, I believe that we all will get a chance to taste “all” of creation at some point of our existence, so we can have the “full” picture.
My heart shudders as well, when I see a bias that is not balanced or show compassion to all of creation.
When this lesson is learned through the density, “we” as the infinite one, won’t be so quick to conspire and make “enemies” of our own brothers and sisters.
I can’t find that exact one about no Logos with negative polarity.
This is the closest:
90.23 Questioner: Would this be the reason for the greater positive harvests? I suspect that it isn’t, but would there be Logoi that have greater negative percentage harvests because of this type of biasing?
Ra: I am Ra. No. There have been Logoi with greater percentages of negative harvests. However, the biasing mechanisms cannot change the requirements for achieving harvestability either in the positive or in the negative sense. There are Logoi which have offered a neutral background against which to polarize. This Logos chose not to do so but instead to allow more of the love and light of the Infinite Creator to be both inwardly and outwardly visible and available to the sensations and conceptualizations of mind/body/spirits* undergoing Its care in experimenting.
Thank you AnthroHeart,
that was helpful,
No. Everything comes from the creator. The good and the bad. The referenced quote says that those entities have become more aware of the kind side.
I think of loving kindness as a compatible
interface to a state of being that not many
people realize. Intrinsic to such striving
seems some sense of humility, some sense
of yielding, and some sense of acceptance;
and as byproduct, a sense of grace.
Today I came across something that
inspired me, it was tangled up in some
genealogy, my grandmother’s cousin
was talking about his five year old
granddaughter back in 1970…
It was Christmas letter dedicated to her,
“…because she is so infinitely loving,
and so infinitely loved…”
And I read this and it’s a bit awe striking,
so I share about it - a sort of lost era
where people wrote such things.
So bear with me, this is my first cousin
twice removed talking about my third
cousin, I think. And get this, we’re all
at least fiftieth cousins to each other.
You too, reader - are infinitely loving,
and infinitely loved!