The Arthurian Maji Grail King Lineage

[Marietta]

1. NO!!!!!
2. YES
3. Noel (don't remember last name), Alia Kusman to mention two that I know of, I don’t know where they work.
4. I’m not translation with interpretation. However both use Hermeneutics to come to a conclusion.
5. They begin in Genesis chapter one, verse one. Which by the way according to Mishnah has been translated at least 129 different ways.

I’m not here to discuss Judaism, Mishnah, my personal translation. I’m here to discuss Indigo Children and or Keylontic Science.

Love and Light, Marietta

 

[Marietta]

You wrote:we've already asked you plenty of times:

1. what are these 6 letters you are talking about?
2. what are these rules of the hebrew language you are talking about?
3. how did the inquisition "change" texts which pre-date the council of nicea, or affect the language, behaviour and practice of jews outside the christian world?
4. has your group's "scientific" work been peer-reviewed in research publications and journals?
5. do you understand the difference between physics and metaphysics
6. who are the "mainstream" scientists who support your beliefs and which institutions do they work for?
7. where in the mishnah does it talk about the rules for interpreting hebrew grammar as opposed to interpreting terminology for the purposes of halakhah?
8. where are the examples of physics in your "crude translation"?

...even one of these points would be a fairly major objection. putting them all together, i would venture to suggest that your case simply doesn't stack up. if you can't address them then you are simply wasting everyone's time. and if you find that "offensive", then i apologise for bursting your bubble, but the moderators are well aware of this thread and there's nothing going on here that is being considered as in breach of the CoC. a decent belief system needs to be able to stand up to a challenge and i am afraid that yours appears to be about as robust as wet tissue paper. perhaps you should go and ask your teacher these very same questions.
1. The six letters are missing, and I have not been shown the missing letters or the names of them. If I had this information and showed you the form in which they look and provided names for them would you be happy and accept it? If you will I will look into finding the name of the six missing letters.
2. The rules I am talking about that were added, are the rules (grammar, syntax, vowel points and so on) used to translate Hebrew.
3. This is answered in the above posts. The Inquisition is only a small part of the suppression of the Hebrew people and their teachings, in the more modern times. The true Inquisition was worldwide.
1. NO!!!!!
2. YES
3. One I personally know is Alia Kusman to mention two that I know personally, I don’t know where they work. Dr. Hezekiah is another who is a medical doctor.
4. I’m not translation with interpretation. However both use Hermeneutics to come to a conclusion.
5. They begin in Genesis chapter one, verse one. Which by the way according to Mishnah has been translated at least 129 different ways.

I’m not here to discuss Judaism, Mishnah, or my personal translation. I’m here to discuss Indigo Children and or Keylontic Science.

Love and Light, Marietta

 

[Marietta]

bananabrain, Why have the Hebrew people been so hated through out history?
I don't buy that iti is because they are evil, vial, animal beings that don't deserve to live. I believe that they hold specific codes in their genes along with information that they would not share with those whom they knew were not mature enough to handle it in a manner that would promote well being for "ALL" and would ultimately use it for harm. Does this mean they are special, better or above the rest of the Human race? No it doesn't, it means that they have special abilities. What is a Lahmed vav nic? What qualifies them to be such? What is a Shaman? What qualifies them to be such and so on and so on.

 

[Marietta]

THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY
(February, 2003)

By Noel Huntley, Ph.D.

There are discomforting shocks in store for those who follow unwaveringly the sacrosanct methodology of orthodox science---believing that it is the only true approach to the attainment of truth and that it produces absolute results. The application of objectivity has become a programmed framework engineered by an evolution of thought directed in this manner to regulate, even retard, man's evolution, of which we have allowed ourselves to be victims.
The basic tenet of scientific method is objectivity---in essence: separation of observer and observed. In fact the acquisition of knowledge must be ruled by this objectivity, or such knowledge is deemed unacceptable. However, the process of observation is not understood.
Blatant assumptions have been made regarding the nature of reality to the degree that these assumptions have now become a programmed format which pervades every facet of our lives. Ever since science began making significant strides in explaining the natural world by the experimental method, establishing laws and universal constants with ever-increasing confidence, there has been the occasional maverick who questioned the steps leading to the establishment of a particular result, even to the extent of implying that the result is not already there but is being brought into reality by the process of observation (a phenomenon quite compatible with quantum physics).
There is no satisfactory consistent universal scientific method for the acquisition of knowledge. The status quo is a scientific delusion. However, the so-called prejudiced results obtained through emotional bias, or errors and failures in judgement, or even downright fraud, are still not sufficient to account for the variations in results. Investigators point out that there is ample evidence in the field of plant studies and also animal behaviour to indicate that expectancies, or wishful thinking on the part of the experimenter influences the results, and that in a similar manner all substance, matter, energy, is also subject to this subtle manipulation.
Why doesn't the environment show more pronounced effects from the 'expectancy' state of mind? If we take up the notion in quantum theory that the observer is selecting a single probability from many, that is, the observation is contextual, we might expect more obvious discrepancies and anomalies in our observations. However, we must not overlook mass agreement, which is also determining what is observed. That is, that the individual and others, collectively, with hidden agreements influence the results. Nevertheless, the individual may still contribute an independent effect over this collective agreement, in particular, when the mass agreement has not been fully determined, such as in the early stages of verification of new theories.
Moreover, both individual and collective causation/selection of environmental events form the basis for a contextual relationship between observer and observed. Observer and environment are interdependent, not independent; or what is observed is in the context of the observer. Quantum physics, the most advanced science on the planet, has been telling us this for decades---and it is elementary in Buddhism. It tells us that when a measurement is made of a system, the experimenter/observer is part of the system under measurement. From another viewpoint this means that the observer/observed interaction is a reality interface in itself.
Metaphysically speaking consciousness has the power to generate a template of thought which then attracts the appropriate probabilities from an infinite source (the quantum reality) to verify or materialise the thought or belief structure. These are outrageous implications. What exactly are we inferring?
We might take the intellectual liberty of enquiring as to what is the coefficient of this 'contextualness'? Shockingly and inevitably we may find it is unity, or apparently 100 percent! This means the degree of detachment from the environment is 100%, which causes the environment to function in the unconscious range of the mind (the not-'I'). The belief structure, it appears, is the environment of apparent total objectivity! It is objective because we don't know we are projecting it---we deny it. This would appear to wipe out everything that science represents---the very edifice and foundation of scientific thought is seemingly invalidated. This is not actually true but it certainly unstabilises present scientific procedures and requires a new look at the premises involved in the acquisition of knowledge. It not only resembles the religious recognition of God as creator but goes beyond it and deifies every individual as creator or participator creator. But again let us stress that the denial will create an apparently totally objective environment, which is now under the full dictates of the 'unconscious'.
If we can't rely on observation, what is going on? The problem is that man's relationship with the environment has become unbalanced. Man's dominant left-brain thinking with suppression of the right-brain activities and intuitive faculties has created a continuous duality between self and environment, between internal processes and external processes; they have been separated. This is the 'I'/not-'I' phenomenon of the ego observation, discussed in some philosophical works and also in quantum physics. Though this gives rise to the dominance of objectivity it is implying that it is really all 'I'. Man's consciousness separates from the environment, denies participation and in doing so creates the apparent objective aspect of the universe. This separation is synonymous with the creation and appearance---selection and perception---of the external 3D world, objectivity, the ego, judgement, denial, irresponsibility and the consolidation of space and time.
Now a possible subtle instance of this selection and perception is highlighted in quantum physics with the example that when a particle is released from point A and detected at point B as a particle (observed), it cannot be assumed to have travelled from A to B (since not observed), in particular, as a particle. Meaning that if an interaction between observer and observed is not occurring, a selection hasn't been made.

 

[Marietta]

Part Two
We are trying to fit quantum physics speculations and theory into this scenario to aid understanding or even belief that it is the interaction process which gives a specific observation, the so-called objective observation. But we see that it is not really objective.
Does this mean scientific objectivity is unreliable? It means results will be relative to its context. This context is the objective conditions which are set up in this third-dimensional frame. This imposes a closed system. As long as we stick to this and agree that all such measurements made under these conditions give valid results and we have a technology based on this, it will all self-prove. But it only gives relative truth (to the given context). As science advances it will meet with increasing difficulties in this regard when it searches for deeper causes (a new context is required).
So far we are saying that the method of objectivity is not so simple. When we set up conditions of separation between observer and observed, we find they are not truly separate. This is evidenced in quantum physics experiments, that the results are contextual. Further recognition of this is apparent in more philosophical and metaphysical theories, such as expressed by the 'I'/not-'I' phenomenon, and in Buddhism doctrine; also from inconsistent results in academic experimental work.
Let us give a simple analogy for this phenomenon of apparent objectivity, giving a truth which is relative to a particular context. Imagine a dog chasing its own tail. Note that we are outside the system. Now consider moving into the system; that is, being the dog---its head, in particular. The dog sees its tail as objective, not realising it is connected through its body. This is an analogy for observations of anything in the environment (and we are actually connected like the dog's head is to the tail). Now consider that the dog observes its tail wagging. The scientist makes a measurement, maybe determines a law. That the tail is wagging can be proved and tested and applied. But is it a total truth?
Let us shift the context to a wider spectrum. We see when watching the dog chase its own tail that in fact the tail is not just wagging but it is going round in circles. Thus this is a greater truth; that the tail is moving in circles as well as wagging---it is waving.
When we look for causes beyond the surface we will not be able to understand what is happening to the 'tail' unless we step outside the third-dimensional context, the closed system of the tail wagging (only), which means the mind must be relied upon more (in the future all physicists will be mental physicists).
If the total consciousness of the system (such as the third dimension) is involved in the observation (this includes all ordinary 3D experience), the status of this whole closed system---consciousness and observation---will act like a zero; a 'nothing', a reference or context, from which to evaluate everything. The dog sees the tail wagging; its total consciousness is dramatising the spinning (plus tail wagging) and thus the spinning is 'zeroed out'; it just sees a tail moving up and down. But not from the next higher fractal view (of the human). All systems, however, are fundamentally open; only man closes them

 

[Marietta]

A blatant example of anchoring contextual limitations and imposing a corresponding limited belief system on the public is Einstein's relativity. (Note that Einstein was manipulated; he did not agree that relativity was complete.) Relativity references the context of what we can call the third-dimensional spectrum. As long as knowledge continues to reference this context the theory will self-prove, and as long as technology is based on it we will find that a body cannot go as fast as the speed of light, and also that the velocity of light is constant relative to all observers---one of science's so-called astounding discoveries. If, however, we reference the context of the upper spectrum which will eventually be recognised as a fourth-dimensional spectrum we shall find that a body can go faster than light and also that the speed of light is not constant---similarly other 'constants' will be found to be relative. (Note that just as the wagging tail is part of the larger system of the dog turning in a circle, so the third dimension is part of the larger system of the fourth.)
Let us give another analogy here which shows how our results in the most fundamental way will vary according to the context, in fact, we will see a new meaning---a qualitative, nonempirical meaning---to the number zero. Imagine a see-saw, that is, a plank with a fulcrum, with a person seated on each end, rocking. The fulcrum is all important; it determines the whole system, movement, etc. It can be considered a zero point from which to measure, for example, the amount of rocking. This is quite a good analogy since it has polarity (two interdependent ends), needed for our kind of existence, and it has frequency: the rocking motion. Thus this is an analogy for any kind of measurement but also for any observation, and for many experiential attributes of our 3D existence. It is an assumed context, a reference point. These two people and the see-saw are in a closed system of perception, a framework---the third dimension emphasised by objectivity. They are not aware of the fact that the see-saw is attached to the end of a larger one---on one end with another couple on the other end. Thus we have a new fulcrum and a new zero. If the first two people now make the same measurements but with respect to the second fulcrum they will get different results. In a similar way the results of, say, Einstein's relativity, is with respect to the objective context of 3D and the result will be incorrect relative to a 'higher' new zero, or what might be called a 4th-dimensional spectrum. Each system has its own zero, which will appear to be absolute relative to that system, but is in fact not absolute since it can be viewed as relative to a greater system containing the smaller one. Similarly the second see-saw is on the end of a still larger one. However, this regression does not continue indefinitely. It has a natural completion just as a twig on a tree goes into a fractal 'regression' of repeated connections to larger branches but does finally terminate in the trunk of the tree or the wholeness. Following through on this analogy of the tree, if we imagine the whole branch swaying in the breeze, clearly the twig motion is greater than its fractal connections to the trunk. In fact we can consider that the twig's first fractal connection to the next branch is a 'zero'. The twig doesn't know the branch is moving, it is only 'aware' of its own motion relative to this seemingly fixed point. And so on for the other branches. Consciousness will also be found to have these same type of fractal levels. We are the first fractal; the second one is already being called the 'soul'. The third fractal level could be the 'oversoul', etc. We see then that similarly our connection to the soul is a 'zero', since we are not generally aware of the soul, that is, being it, otherwise for a full understanding of this level one must take into account this soul level and higher ones to obtain greater truth.
Objectivity forces the mind to detect/observe in the most materialistic manner ('seeing is believing'). But as we have described it forms a closed system, including only the ego consciousness. A system cannot be understood relative to a higher system if one can't 'step outside' the first system. This is what evolution of the mind and knowledge is all about: expanding consciousness---continually stepping outside the system into a higher fractal level. However, our very educational methods close off consciousness at the ego level, denying where possible even the next soul fractal level (creating a block between the 'twig' and its next fractal level or context, the attached branch).
Context is the 'glue' or framework that holds together all knowledge in proper relationship, and this also applies to energy. Imposing objective conditions to remove any intuitive processes (what little remains with the humans) produces relative results, not absolute. These relative results change with the proper evolution of the species and planet (the planet evolves also). Of course we can't suddenly abandon objectivity, we have become dependent on it---it will be a gradual process but as stated above, scientists will eventually operate entirely in the 'mind'. The key to this problem of recovery is in the lost symbiosis between consciousness (subjectivity) and technology (objectivity).
What can we do about this problem of these limitations of objectivity? The ego and objectivity are variables. If the degree of objectivity increases, it gives greater unconsciousness of the environment and therefore will hide still more the influences on the environment of the individual's state of mind. Vice-versa as we develop perception more on the right-brain side---inner-consciousness and intuition---consciousness will experience the environment more, actually feel the qualities of objects, minds, etc. by reading vibrations (resonating consciousness' vibrations with those in the environment with instantaneous transmission of greater information---a feature recognised in quantum mechanics---received as a very positive feeling or knowingness). Consciousness will participate more consciously with the environment---the not-'I' is gradually becoming the 'I', but with consciousness allowing the separation ('objectivity').
With this reduced unconsciousness and increased oneness with the natural world, prejudices and expectancies will have no effect---in fact will not exist, since the observer is much more focussed in the present moment of observation. Laws and 'constants' will be found to be more flexible but recognisably, in accord with collective agreements (operating within the basic design of nature, framed by numbers of dimensions, etc.). An agreed upon consistency and predictability is achieved, governed by selection of available probabilities. But as we evolve towards much greater ability to knowingly create or be---that is, duplicate with consciousness' vibrations, not by representation and intellect---the universe and its laws become entirely a matter of choice and agreement, creating an existence for experiment, expression, and observation.

Home Page of Dr. Noel Huntley--article The Ultimate Swindle (Home Page of Dr. Noel Huntley--article The Ultimate Swindle)
Dr. Noel Huntley's has given written permission on the web sit to copy and share any of the material.
Here is a copy of his permission from the above web site:
Copyright, 1999, Noel Huntley
Articles may be used freely as written, and any quotations acknowledged.

 

[Dondi]

Methinks you lost your audience, long after your credibility.

 

[bananabrain]

1. The six letters are missing, and I have not been shown the missing letters or the names of them.

and yet you just accept such an extraordinary statement when there are clear, logical reasons as to why it couldn't possibly be true?

If I had this information and showed you the form in which they look and provided names for them would you be happy and accept it? If you will I will look into finding the name of the six missing letters.

if you show me the form in which they look and provided names for them, plus the source of this research, then i will *investigate* and try and find out what is really going on. i do not just "happily accept" theories which don't make logical sense.

2. The rules I am talking about that were added, are the rules (grammar, syntax, vowel points and so on) used to translate Hebrew.

that still isn't an answer, it's a reiteration of a vague assertion. i need a few actual examples. incidentally, you need to be aware of the difference between paleo-hebrew, biblical hebrew, mishnaic hebrew, rabbinic hebrew and the various historical and geographical dialects of aramaic, all of which vary in terms of grammar, syntax and vowel points to a certain extent. if you are talking about stuff like a plural noun ending in "yod-nun" (een) as opposed to "yod-mem" (eem), those are the sort of linguistic variations we are well aware of. if you are talking about a given verse of, say Torah, having incorrect meanings imposed upon it, let's see a concrete example, or this is so much guff.

3. This is answered in the above posts. The Inquisition is only a small part of the suppression of the Hebrew people and their teachings, in the more modern times. The true Inquisition was worldwide.

you mean that potted history of anti-semitism you just posted? i know all that. you seem to be suggesting that anti-semitism has been globally orchestrated like some sort of vast conspiracy and i would have to answer, there just isn't the evidence that i know of. referring to it as "the true inquisition" is completely misleading. more to the point, it doesn't answer my objection, which is that in, say, iraq, during the 1,000 year period of the undisputed leadership of the jewish world from babylonia, encompassing the eras of the amoraim, saboraim and ga'onim, from the C2nd to the C12th, nobody, from the zoroastrian emperor mazdak to the caliph haroun al-rashid, was in a position to suppress letters of the hebrew alphabet. it wasn't even only used by us, but also by the samaritans, syriacs and numerous other locals - aramaic was the lingua franca of the middle east. more to the point, these letters could not have been expunged from *older* texts which have been more recently discovered. is there some way in which i am failing to explain this? *what you suggest is quite simply not possible*.

1. NO!!!!!

then it's not proper science as i understand it!

2. YES

then why do you suggest that metaphysics can be understood using scientific methods?

3. One I personally know is Alia Kusman to mention two that I know personally, I don’t know where they work. Dr. Hezekiah is another who is a medical doctor.

if they're bona fide doctors, they should be on here if they're in the UK:

GMC | List of Registered Medical Practitioners

or here somewhere in the US:

MedlinePlus: Directories

as for other qualifications, lists of graduates are normally available online. people aren't normally shy about telling you where their degrees are from. and you've left out the bits about institutions, too.

4. I’m not translation with interpretation. However both use Hermeneutics to come to a conclusion.

you should be able to tell me where in the mishnah it is, even in translation. yevamot 5:3? bava metzia 2:1? arachin 4:2? let's have a verse reference, please, otherwise i'll be forced to conclude you don't know what you're on about.

5. They begin in Genesis chapter one, verse one. Which by the way according to Mishnah has been translated at least 129 different ways.

i'm perfectly aware of that. i'd like you to give me an example of some physics that you claim to have found yourself, using your "crude translation". you can use that verse if you like, i'll even quote it for you: BeReiShiTh BaRA ELOHIM ETh HaShaMaYiM We-ETh Ha-AReTz.

I’m not here to discuss Judaism, Mishnah, or my personal translation. I’m here to discuss Indigo Children and or Keylontic Science.

but you're saying that judaism and kabbalah and your translation confirm and validate these things. all i'm doing is getting you to explain how exactly.

believe that they hold specific codes in their genes along with information that they would not share with those whom they knew were not mature enough to handle it in a manner that would promote well being for "ALL" and would ultimately use it for harm.

like what information? do you have an example?

it means that they have special abilities.

for example?

What is a Lahmed vav nic? What qualifies them to be such?

oh, you can take a correspondence course in being a lamed-vav-nik these days. seriously though, i don't think you get a certificate. that's the point; they aren't exactly out and proud and wearing t-shirts; i've never met one.

as for that essay by this dr huntley, what has that got to do with anything? i know science isn't "objective". nor do scientific experiments tell us what is "true", only whether a hypothesis can be disproved or not. how is this relevant?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Marietta]

Dear bananabrain,

You wrote:
but you're saying that judaism and kabbalah and your translation confirm and validate these things. all i'm doing is getting you to explain how exactly.

My reply: That’s not what I’m saying at all.. Judaism and/or kabbalah do not confirm or validate anything that I am sharing. What "I'm" trying to convey is that through "my personal" translation of Torah, I was learning science (creation physics to be exact) and then when I found Keylontic Science it validated for “me”, what I had come to understand for myself with the aid of my translation of the Torah, not that Torah holds this information, it was merely an aid in my wake up process.
As you are saying and I somewhat agree, Torah does “NOT” hold Divine universal creation physics. However, I was waking up to my own cellular memory, remembering a time when Torah did hold this information and it was coming back to me through my crude translation. This is not open to debate, as it is something I personally experienced, learned and found validated in Keylontic Science. Torah and my translation is not something I am trying to teach or promote, just sharing why I "personally" believe in the teachings of Keylontic Science as the Devine Creation Science that all science is derived from.

Whether or not you agree with the Science of Keylontic Science or not is irrelevant, “AS FAR AS HOW I WAS LEAD TO KEYLONTIC SCIENCE, AND HOW IT WAS VALIDATED PERSONALLY FOR ME, (caps don't meant as yelling) which was through my personal Translation of Torah. TORAH IS NOT KEYLONTIC SCIENCE, CREATION SCIENCE, but my vague translation was leading me (personally) to creation science.

My question was: What is a Lahmed vav nic? What qualifies them to be such?

You wrote: oh, you can take a correspondence course in being a lamed-vav-nik these days. seriously though, i don't think you get a certificate. that's the point; they aren't exactly out and proud and wearing t-shirts; i've never met one.

My reply: You know as well as I do that a lamed vav nik is someone considered special with special powers just like the Indigo’s. A frequency holder. It is taught that there have always been and always should be 36 lamed vav niks on this planet or the planet could not exist as we know it.
Are these aliens, are they higher, better, greater, or superior to the rest of us? How does the concept of a lamed vav nik differ from that of an indigo other than the number required to be here. We are at the end of a cycle as you should know, and more frequency is needed to keep thing in balance so at this time more frequency holders (that is all an Indigo is) are incarnating. You also know that a lamed vav nik traditionally doesn’t know who/what they are (their memories were suppressed).

Love and Light, Marietta

They must find it difficult
Those who have taken Authority as Truth
Rather than
Truth as Authority

 

[bananabrain]

What "I'm" trying to convey is that through "my personal" translation of Torah, I was learning science (creation physics to be exact) and then when I found Keylontic Science it validated for “me”, what I had come to understand for myself with the aid of my translation of the Torah, not that Torah holds this information, it was merely an aid in my wake up process.

urk. leaving aside for the moment the bit where i don't think we agree that "creation physics" is really science, you're saying that Torah was a catalyst, not a tool, i think. now, i'm prepared to believe that, but i'm not sure you've really understood anything about Torah in and of itself.

as far as kabbalah is concerned, you said that if i "understood it" (which as far as i'm concerned, i'm not entirely clueless) i wouldn't find this "keylontic" malarkey such a stretch. well, there i feel i must differ from you. i think you're the one who really doesn't understand what kabbalah is and how it works. it certainly *doesn't* talk about DNA or feline hominoids - statements about angelic beings, soul structure or the 18,000 universes and higher worlds are quite simply not pointing to what you seem to believe.

However, I was waking up to my own cellular memory, remembering a time when Torah did hold this information and it was coming back to me through my crude translation.

hmmm. no, sorry, this sounds like the most egregious case of confirmation bias i have ever struck. "cellular memory", my bottom.

This is not open to debate, as it is something I personally experienced, learned and found validated in Keylontic Science.

as dana carvey's "church lady" would have put it, "how convenient".

You know as well as I do that a lamed vav nik is someone considered special with special powers just like the Indigo’s.

a lamed vav-nik is a righteous person, a saint. if s/he is special, it is not because of "special powers" or "extra DNA", it is because s/he has attained a higher spiritual level through the most rigorous and testing self-discipline, which you can read about in texts such as the "tanya", the "palm tree of deborah" or the "path of the righteous". what you are talking about is pure fiction. i suppose you think you have some of these "special powers". i'd lay off the graphic novels and sci-fi dramas if i were you.

We are at the end of a cycle as you should know, and more frequency is needed to keep thing in balance so at this time more frequency holders (that is all an Indigo is) are incarnating.

the eyes are open, the mouth moves, but mr brain has long since departed. beam me up, scotty.

They must find it difficult
Those who have taken Authority as Truth
Rather than
Truth as Authority

you see, you hold yourself out as some kind of enlightened higher being, but when it comes down to it it's really far easier to attempt to combine mystical gobbledigook with being rather obviously patronising. how very disappointingly, predictably smug of you.

they must find it hard work
those who have taken Mystical Bollocks as the Explanation of Everything
Rather than
Ask a Difficult Question once in a while.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[path_of_one]

What I'd like to know is what all these "special powers" are that are so special. If they're the type of thing you enumerated on page one of this thread (i.e., healing, past life memory, etc.) those are not that special.

Everyone is capable of affecting healing.

Lots of people claim to have past life memories. I believe I have some. That doesn't make such a belief or experience scientific or valid in anyone else's eyes. Additionally, I find it amusing how many people remember being queens, kings, Mary Magdalene, etc. and how few people remember the kind of boring, everyday lives like I had. Ones like my current life where I work, sleep, eat, hang out, and die. This alone indicates to me that a lot of this past life stuff is wishful thinking. We can't all be Cleopatra, you know.

Anyhoo... what are these special powers that only happen in so few people? Because as far as I can tell, there are tons of people out there and nearly all of them have some capacities in healing, empathy, telepathy, and so forth. They seem like pretty normal human traits to me, but just like being good at math, having a gift of drawing, or being pitch-perfect in singing... some are better than others.

It all still seems to buy into the "ooo, I feel so special and unique! I am so important!" worldview that is so prevalent in the Western modern world. An attempt to make life interesting and boost self-esteem, make us feel better about any perceived inadequacies we have.

As for cellular memory- what are you talking about? Do you just mean something resonates with you? That you feel like you remember something? Do you realize that just because we have a feeling, thought, or what seems like a memory does not mean it's accurate? We can fabricate memories. We can convince ourselves of all sorts of stuff that is completely not grounded in reality.

And as for being unwilling to debate, these posts have made it clear that you made huge claims in the OPs and then were unable or unwilling to back any of them with established reference material- your own or anyone else's. Everyone is supposed to agree with you or completely ignore said claims on the basis of your own "cellular memory." You don't want debate. That's understandable, because you seem ill equipped to provide any real evidence of your claims. However, these are open discussion forums and people are allowed to challenge such big claims and to debate. You don't get to dictate to others what they will challenge or how they will respond to your claims. You certainly can (and have) decided to fail to provide any evidence, which only underscores that these claims are not grounded in scientific proof, and so should not be claiming to be scientific.

 

[Marietta]

Dear bananabrain,

My intent has never been to promote Kabbalah or Judaism, and it has never been my intent to try to teach the tools used in my personal learning.

How do you suppose that a single cell, divides and divides again grows into a human if it doesn't hold memory. How does the cell produce a human with the traits of its mother and father, if it doesn't hold the cellular memory of both parents and that of the grand parents and so on and so on? The cell is what creates all living things. It takes a lot of memory for that to happen. How do you think you remember what you did yesterday or last year or the year before and so on? Where is this memory held?

Not wanting to debate my methods of learning has nothing to do with convenience. Its not something that can be taught. Its something that has to be experienced. My method works for me. Can you explain how you process information and where it came from if it isn't merely parroting what someone else has told you? If it is an idea you thought of on your own can you explain how it came into you mind? If you were looking at the sky late at night and an idea popped into your head that you had never heard of before, could you explain where that idea came from?

Love and Light, Marietta

Still smiling!

 

[Dondi]

Is this 'cellular memory' something exclusively taught in Keystone, er.. I mean, Keylontic Science? If so, then it seems to me that you are saying that your celluar memory woke you up to the 'truthfulness' of Keylontic Science. But this is rather taking the cart before the horse isn't it?

It's kinda like me saying that I found this ancient book that told me that I should pray to the Holy Spirit for confirmation that the book is true and I would feel estatic and feely good and gooey all inside about the book, so it must be true because this is what the book said would happen if I prayed for confirmation about the book, that I would feel good. Hey, that's what the book said, after all. So it must be true.

 

[Dondi]

How do you suppose that a single cell, divides and divides again grows into a human if it doesn't hold memory. How does the cell produce a human with the traits of its mother and father, if it doesn't hold the cellular memory of both parents and that of the grand parents and so on and so on? The cell is what creates all living things. It takes a lot of memory for that to happen. How do you think you remember what you did yesterday or last year or the year before and so on? Where is this memory held?

Ah, you must be talking about DNA now. But DNA doesn't hold any "memories". It's just a code to tell the cells how and when to form and divide and so forth. Coding is not memory itself. There is nothing to indicate that there are 'memories' in the cell like you would have about remembering a summer's day down at the beach last August with your family.

 

[Dondi]

Not wanting to debate my methods of learning has nothing to do with convenience. Its not something that can be taught. Its something that has to be experienced. My method works for me. Can you explain how you process information and where it came from if it isn't merely parroting what someone else has told you? If it is an idea you thought of on your own can you explain how it came into you mind? If you were looking at the sky late at night and an idea popped into your head that you had never heard of before, could you explain where that idea came from?

An idea is formed from previous data and information and experiences that you've gained in the past. Some inductive reasoning takes place as you mind forms the idea. But it's still based on some kind of previous knowledge. Technical science builds on knowledge gained from the past. We are creative, but it's really taking that knowledge and applying it in different ways.

But tell me, how do dreams form? I have had some pretty weird and nasty dreams. But much of the time I identify elements of the dream with bits and pieces of it because of what is stored in my memory, even if it doesn't congeal to make sense. But I never would confuse my dreams with reality. For example, if I dreamt I was flying without the aid of anything but myself, I wouldn't wake up and decide that now I can fly and try and leap off a cliff in the attempt to prove it.

 

[path_of_one]

Exactly, Dondi. Cells' DNA holds information, not memories. Memories, in the sense of "I remember when great-grandma celebrated her 90th birthday and we had a huge chocolate cake" are remembered in the brain and has nothing to do with DNA. DNA codes for when/how to have the body do stuff. What stuff to assemble for growth, development, maintenance.

As for generating thoughts, are you proposing that all thoughts come from elsewhere, Marietta? Isn't it possible we just think up something? Are all thoughts indicative of truth coming to us from somewhere in the universe? There's a whole lot of fantasy and sci-fi novels out there that aren't much different in scope or creativity from what you are proposing in the OP with the feline hominids and the nephilim and etc. Are you saying all these authors are picking up on some great truths out there? The human brain can create ideas- can generate storylines. Most of it actually IS based on stuff it heard from elsewhere, but reorganized. But we are capable of original thoughts. Not sure how that makes those thoughts grounded in reality. They might be, and they might not be.

As an aside, as apparent from your OP, your ideas (or the ideas presented) are not actually original thoughts. As I, Brian points out- they are ideas pulled from a wide variety of religions and mystery traditions and smooshed together in a smorgasbord of stuff. That isn't parroting, but it isn't exactly thinking things up on your own, is it? Most of storytelling, art, and human thought works this way- we take a bit of this and that, reinterpret, retell the story, create with the bits left over from others.

Just the fact that this happens is completely insufficient for evidence whether our ideas, stories, etc. have anything to do with reality or truth. Our brains are entirely capable of coming up with all sorts of scenarios, and attaching all kinds of warm fuzzy feelings to them. That doesn't mean it is actually the case.

My overall point is- this may work for you as a belief system, but to make such fantastic claims as extra or modified DNA, special powers, feline hominids (which you've never addressed, by the way), nephilim, angelics, etc. and to claim this is grounded in science... that is where it goes from belief system to completely unsubstantiated storytelling.

 

[Dondi]

My overall point is- this may work for you as a belief system, but to make such fantastic claims as extra or modified DNA, special powers, feline hominids (which you've never addressed, by the way), nephilim, angelics, etc. and to claim this is grounded in science... that is where it goes from belief system to completely unsubstantiated storytelling.

Seems like the stuff of dreams.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I dunno. As far fetched as some of this stuff seems, it isn't that different from how Christianity was invented out of altered and embellished artifacts from other traditions. Look how Christianity baldly inserts its avatar into the foundational myths of Judaism. That's outrageous! Islam does the same by appropriating Abraham's bastard son Ishmael as its patriarch. Heck, the Bahia's scab off all three.

I remember one poster who claimed to be a vampire. I remember she said something about "...in the vampire community, blah blah blah...". I found that humorous! The vampire community indeed! But everybody wants to identify with some kind of cool, identity providing, thing. It's some kind of Borg hive programming, I swear! Then again, it's not that different from just reading historical fiction. You're already acting it out in your head, so why not your body as well? Why not make a personal religion out of it? After all, that's how at least two of the three monotheistic biggies started out.

Chris

 

[Marietta]

Dear bananabrain,
You wrote:
as dana carvey's "church lady" would have put it, "how convenient".

My reply: I have told you how I was translating the hebrew without all the rules and told you that I found Physics in the text and that when I started studying Physics I already knew it. What more do you want? You don't understand how someone could possibly understand something from the methods I have used, so what is the point of continuing with this topic. I know the method I used to study and I know what I gained from it, plain and simple. As stated my form of learning isn't up for discussion. I'm here to discuss Indigo's and Keylontic Science, two topics you know nothing about. So why are you trying to debate in this thread?

You wrote:
hmmm. no, sorry, this sounds like the most egregious case of confirmation bias i have ever struck. "cellular memory", my bottom.

My reply: Label it whatever you wish, it doesn't change the "FACT" that I knew things that I had not studied about Physics and other forms of science before studying it.
How do you explain these kids and what they know? Where does the knowledge come from if not from cellular memory, it wasn't taught: She sees the images in her head and then paints them. The second is of a little blind girl who can play classical music after hearing only once.

YouTube - Akiane Kramarik, Spiritual Young Artist, BR-PT subtitles

YouTube - Yeh Eun - the 5 year old Blind pianist Genius

My Nephew at the age of two (now 30) went to his father sitting at the computer and asked to play on the computer. Back then the computers were all in dos language. His father told him that he had to be big enough to read to be able to play on the computer. A little while later he came to his father with the encyclopedia and read a page to him. He had never been taught the most base of knowledge about reading, alphabet or so on.
Where did this knowledge come from?
My child used to work in a preschool (1-2 year olds) and one day she put the kids names a piece of paper and tacked them to a board at the end of the day she took them down. The next day one little boy picked up the pile of names and read. When the mother and father came to pick this child up and was asked who taught her to read the parents said that nobody did and that they had no idea she could do this.
Where did this memory come from?
I could sight case after case and it all points to cellular memory. How do you explain genius, prodigy, gifted or whatever you wish to call it?

You wrote: a lamed vav-nik is a righteous person, a saint. if s/he is special, it is not because of "special powers" or "extra DNA", it is because s/he has attained a higher spiritual level through the most rigorous and testing self-discipline, which you can read about in texts such as the "tanya", the "palm tree of deborah" or the "path of the righteous". what you are talking about is pure fiction.

My reply: What is the purpose of the 36 lahmed vav niks? Why are there always 36 here, not 37, not 35? If they are merely righteous people why on 36?
Define how you are using the term righteous?

Love and Light, Marietta

 

[bgruagach]

I'm an elementary school teacher (kindergarten through grade 6). Children are amazing sponges, absorbing all sorts of information and learning all the time.

Language, particularly written language, is around us constantly in most English-speaking communities. It's on TV, it's on product packaging, it's on street signs. Most families have at least a few books, magazines, or newspapers lying around the house that kids can pick up (perhaps when adults aren't paying attention!)

Kids who tend to pick up reading quickly, early, or apparently "on their own" usually come from homes where the adults are more on the literate side of things (having plenty of books, magazines, etc. lying around, constantly reading themselves so kids see that reading is interesting). The adults in these homes tend to also be verbally sophisticated and talk in complete sentences. Kids are listening even when adults don't think they are! My point is that the brain gets "primed" for reading in literate, verbally sophisticated environments so healthy normally developing children quite often will learn to read quite easily and often on their own. It's all about being in an enriched environment and having the opportunity to learn (regardless if the adults are actively trying to teach reading or not).

There's no need to try and explain it with extraordinary theories when perfectly normal, observable, simple explanations will cover it. And I think we are perhaps not giving kids the credit they are due by suggesting that they couldn't have learned to read on their own when in a literate, verbal environment with lots of opportunity except as the result of some sort of exceptional "homo superior" theory. Kids are not stupid.