The Detuning of Session 17 and Ra's True Intentions Regarding 2011 - Part II

[J.Q.]

This may be slightly off the point, but.... Well, the thing to avoid, it seems to me, is to turn The Ra Material or, for that matter, ANY powerful spiritual text into an object of analysis, whether intellectual or scholarly or literary or what-have-you. I have also been deeply moved by the (staggeringly impressive) works of Sri Aurobindo, for example, but when I visited his ashram in Pondicherry and saw how "Sri Aurobindo scholars" among his modern-day "discilples" (the man left his body in 1950!) were going through books like "The Life Divine" and "The Synthesis of Yoga" with a fine tooth comb, arguing and nitpicking in their interpretations and battling among themselves heatedly sometimes, I had to ask myself: what is the difference between this and the insanely narrow-minded Bible-study and chatechism classes I had to rebel against as a teenager, just to stay sane? The same applies for me, now, to The Law of One: I keep the general drift and lessons and the impact of meeting it with me, but make no effort to analyze or memorize (let alone to defend it or promulgate it). Personally, the passages mentioned don't trouble me at all, since I'm not really concerned with defending any particular image or story of the childhood of Jesus, and any "negative impact" in my thinking is my responsibility and no one else's. What Ra may or not have "predicted" and whether or not he actually did, or "does the wording mean this or that," and "isn't that potentially dangerous" and etc. etc.--this is the sort of line of thinking that, ultimately, necessitates "authorities" on the material who can decide. And do we really want to go there? Like Patrick said above, words themselves are distortions. Take what works and feels right, leave the rest.