Ra's Adventures in Wonderland

[Tenet Nosce]

Oh come now, you guys all know what I am talking about, because each of you who asked have challenged these ideas at multiple times, in multiple contexts. (They have a habit of popping up again and again.) I can only assume that is because you all have actually read the material, rather than skimming over it and projecting your own preconceptions into it.

Maybe dogma was a poor word choice. Let's just keep it at distortion.

I'm not trying to play coy with anybody. It's just that my intention for this thread is for it to be centered around what Ra DID say, rather than about what Ra DID NOT say. And perhaps to consider the proposition that, in cases of perceived ambiguity, it would be wise to defer to Ra's self-stated "nature and purpose" given in Session One.

There also appears to be some concern that I am trying to set myself up as an authority here. Not at all. If anybody else would like to take a crack at restating 1.1 and 1.6 in their own terms, I'm all ears! (Or rather, eyes.)