This is precisely correct. (Relistened)

[Tenet Nosce]

Maybe Tenet is trying to show that the Ra material should not be taken as precise information, since "precisely correct" does not appear often?

Yes, I think this is an important point. In times past, I was involved in a number of heated discussions with a member here who, while extremely knowledgeable regarding the material, was of the firm opinion that Ra corrected Don every time there was an error in his perception of the philosophy. I feel like that would have been extremely impractical. Rather, it makes more sense to me that Ra would have preferred to give special attention to where Don got it right, and only make corrections in the more extreme cases of error.

Incidentally, can words give precise information about anything ?

I'm reminded of this example demonstrating what a difference a little emphasis can make:

I didn't have sex with your wife last weekend.
I didn't have sex with your wife last weekend.
I didn't have sex with your wife last weekend.
I didn't have sex with your wife last weekend.
I didn't have sex with your wife last weekend.
I didn't have sex with your wife last weekend.

(Sorry it's not my example. I don't believe I've ever met your wife!)

---

Thanks for this excellent thread, TN.

Thanks!

For what it's worth, I think that Ra wanted to reward Don for perceiving a concept so well. Sometimes Don seemed to be reaching for an interpretation, so they happily told him that he was "precisely correct," or "Way to go, Questioner! You're hot now."

Questions of lesser import got a lesser "correct," as in "keep going..."

Yes, I think so. All in all, he actually got a lot right. And some things were very perceptive. I think it is important for us to remember that we have the conveniences of search tools like lawofone.info to compare terms and phrases across the material as a whole. Plus the luxury of time. I first came across the material around 15 years ago, and I still get new reads on it. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been to grasp at some of these concepts with so little time between sessions, or even within the same session!

I am also reminded of something I noticed when I first read the stories of Jesus as told in the Bible. It really struck me how much his disciples really struggled with understanding what he was trying to say. They had the wrong idea quite a bit- and even after multiple attempts at correction many struggled with stepping away from their preconceived notions and ingrained dogma. Then, on top of that we have people who come along hundreds of years later- never having met Jesus- and writing about his philosophy. Then, some other dudes come along hundreds of years after that and canonize these works, incorporating many (what I believe to be) distorted beliefs into the core philosophy of Christianity, as it is passed down to us today. It just always seemed kind of silly to me that all these people take certain beliefs at face value, and place blind faith in said beliefs, simply because they have achieved consensus status among the masses.

I mean- we've all played that game where people sit in circle and a story gets passed around from ear to ear. By the time it gets back to the original person, it often bears little resemblance to the original story, whatsoever! It's just strange that people would think it any different when it comes to these other works that have been handed down to us over so many centuries.

I can only imagine if- at some point in the far distant future- only a few scraps and remnants of the Ra material remained and they just so happened to be some of the quotes where Don was really struggling to understand what they were saying!