So far and I'm only up to midway, she does not explicitly reveal actual core techniques - and what I mean by that is she does actually say though (as I am also saying here and have been for a while), there is something very specific and very materially real and physical going in when she practices some kind of 'technique.' And so that all does involve technique, real method, and I guess science after all.
 |
| The cost to have these things, is a few bucks. What you write in there, is entirely up to you. |
Probably because of the day and age in which this particular book of hers was written, and the market mindset it was addressed to, she does refer to various scientific sources and cites all of them, in a way still though, to just go around the core ideas; in other words she does use a kind of circumlocution but only accidentally and incidentally due to not actually wanting to divulge - I don't believe - the real techniques. For me I think, and I have said so before, that it is a trap trying to indulge people in their addiction to what they think is 'real and true,' aka to modern 'science.'
Modern science however, suffers from two distinct aspects that make it highly problematic in fact - and I know a lot of people will bridle at that.
Firstly it has never and cannot, address the fallacy of its own 'infinite division' problem (aka 'analysis'). Analysis only works within the set frames of reference for that Gauss Curve of all possibilities relevant to the framed conditions in question, and in view.
...If there are unknown conditions but which are still real and have effects on outcomes, then the process of endless 'analysis' will not deliver the solution of 'knowing' in that case - which is, after all, the thing science claims to want to do. It wants to know the process, understand or see the mechanisms, and repeat for thus 'knowable' results.
And all the time, more and more these days, when Man goes well past the edges of present knowledge, it (science) bangs the desk and claims to know stuff by theory - which it does not actually know at all. People make incredible and gulling suppositions under the names of 'science' and 'academics,' and then throw around the labels they create, to mimic knowledge and facts, claiming that the labels themselves are the facts; which they are not and can never be.
 |
| It's just a toy. Right? |
'Trust the science.' It was a vividly deadly political slogan.
Nobody from that quarter said 'trust the knowledge;' because where was the knowledge?!
Anyway I have completely led myself away from what I set out to talk about...!
The point is that MacLaine says, on the first page of Chapter 7 of her hardback version, which is page 95, that all of the 'mystery schools' be they Eastern, or Christian or shamanic and so on, use a scale just like we know the seven note musical scale, and the seven color spectrum.
But she does not go further into actually how (to operate), and/or what that 'scale set' is.
Which at least leads me to where I was going in the first place, which was what I promised you -, namely that I would explain the hidden bits and what goes on with this 'changing of bread into actual God-physicality(!)' story.
I am going to say these things with total authority here, but you can go to any really 'old school' text-book cleric - especially any of these American SSPX bishops, for example, the ones the Vatican just all 'ex-communicated' (lol) - and ask them about the specifics I am about to detail, and they will confirm them all to you.
 |
| I don't think that's a toy. I think this one is the life-sized, functioning thing. |
Except even some of those will not actually have the inside real knowledge but they will certainly know about it enough to tell you in broad terms.
So does water turn miraculously into wine, or does ordinary wine turn into someone's blood.
I mean hey if it does, we can get the 'scientists' to stick their instruments and their fingers into the wine and then the blood, and run tests and everything, and come back with the results.
(This is gonna be a hell-long post this one. Sorry!).
So anyway, to cut it all down, the story of the Bible, New Testament part, goes like this:
Lights seen in sky, Three Wise Men (or Kings, whatever), bring GIFTS (is important) baby born, stable animals (not important but hey), da de da de dah lots of things go on, then up in the enclosed upper rooms, eat some bread, drink some wine, 'Sorry, guys; I'm about to go and this is the last time I will eat and drink with you all, but see, look, see - see this bread you are eating and wine you are drinking, you are eating and drinking the same stuff with me, so I am just like you, right...'
...Gets killed. Disappears from grave, turns up around the place lots for forty days, then completely goes away -, then back to the enclosed upper rooms, ten days after that (so, fifty days in all, give or take; Ahmad Deedat don't argue!) big wind, light shows up again inside room, splits apart, goes onto and into the heads of people present.
All could be rubbish. Let's examine further.
Chris Bledsoe is half-enough right.
 |
| Palazzo Reale, in Turin. |
You cannot go out into the open countryside, and look up, and try and 'communicate' with say, super super advanced high-tech ET Aliens, but then have something behind your back -.
He's right so far on that matter.
Thinking of Shirley MacLaine's pragmatism though, and disregarding (difficult for me) me tendency to go off into obscure language forms - what makes a 'priest' as in a genuine Christian priest, a priest?
Now I should have said earlier that when MacLaine links Eastern ideas like these with Western ones, I am now going to link 'alcohol' with 'ghee' (clarified butter), and this is about to become important in a minute here.
Okay so everybody thinks they know how this 'ceremony' goes on, at 'altars' and even in certain kinds of Jewish Temple rituals - a 'sacrifice' is 'made.'
That's the standard terminology everybody - all the churches, synagogues, even some Sufi places - use. 'Sacrifice.'
Ah well but no, it's not though. Not the thing that happens or is meant to happen. This, what happens now, is a subversion - just like what happened during the time of the boy-king Josiah, with the Jews - of what is really meant to happen, In part it is because the thing has not been passed down through the actual institutions as a whole, and in part because of other very nefarious reasons.
There are in fact, three 'sacrifices' undertaken and none of them are sacrifices and you'll see why not, in a second.
The main segment of the 'turning wine into blood(!)' (Gewd I love to say that here), is couched in the modern heretical rituals, in the terminology 'offering/offertory.'
 |
| Where is the Tree of Joy? And what toys lie underneath it? |
But even so, at that point, in the old school way, they spoke a Latin phrase and the Eastern Churches including the Ethiopian, used Greek or forms of Greek - but in Latin: Hoc Est Enim Corpus Meum.'
'This is my body.'
Does not say 'this is your body, Jesus; and I am about to eat it.'
And then the guy up front says 'and those gathered here, by their faith if sincere, you shall reward.'
He never says 'by (his) my faith.' And this saying about priests having 'lost their faith' is a non sequitur.
Priests, real priests, do not have faith - they have knowledge.
And I will show you something now and you'll get a shock. Firstly though, I repeat, the ordinary people have no knowledge, they must rely on their own faith in the guy up there doing the leading, doing the ritualistic performance.
So, the Sanskrit Hindu caste priests (because that's what they are still called, 'priests') take a flat plate, not so much a bowl but it can be a wide open bowl, and they go up the side of a mountain, and they put some ghee into the bowl (or onto the plate) and hold it up to the sky, and if lightning or something like that strikes it and sets the thing aflame, then, and only then, can they conduct further business.
 |
| He's just an actor, in a movie. But as I have told you many times - 'Theatros.' It means something. |
In the Latin Mass, the - well what is now called 'offering' - is called 'the Oblation;' which comes from the Latin and Greek 'libation.'
'Oblation' is a gift, not a sacrifice. 'Sacrifice' the word, has something of meanness about it, and miserliness to it; if you ask me.
In the traditional Roman Catholic Mass, there are THREE such 'gifts:' the first which is literally called 'the Secret' and which part is not divulged to the general public at all (I mean, AT ALL, although I am going to divulge it here) - is done the same way the Sanskrit Hindus do it: they hold up the flat plate, called the paten, which has some wine in it, high above their head, and this light is supposed to come down and set fire to it.
Oh yes.
Unless a person has literally had that experience happen when they are practicing the ritual, in front of some observing other person - would be the 'Bishop' say, usually - they will not be made a 'priest.'
Now look, hey, of course all of these things can be subverted. The Hindu priests are nothing if not notorious for making stuff up.
But nevertheless, that is the actual procedure and the path to 'official priest' status.
This is never shown to the public. The last place this kind of thing went on, in any way that was talked about, was in Venice during the Renaissance and before Napoleon went in there.
So anyway, the thing is, if you are following the logic of the wording here - it's the priest who has become 'the body' not the bread thing-y. And he goes on to say, loudly in that part of the altar ritual - 'and I Iay down my life' (for my people, whatever). And he does that 1. because his buddies have all seen this guy do it, and then rise from the dead (ostensibly according to the narrative account), and 2. they (his long-ago buddies) all had this 'light' show up actually, and go into them, inside them FR - and but then he has too (had this experience).
 |
| ...They're just actors, in a movie. That's all. |
This ritual is all straight out of Plato by the way, although it is well-known and written about by others back then and even the Ancient Egyptians had it. Certainly the Hindus had it; still have it.
The first 'gift' is called 'Spondee' - which is what thing you want to give to some advanced, in the case of ancient traditions, 'divine' being, that you think they will enjoy. They already have or can have anything you have, but that's not the point - you enjoy a drink, getting drunk, so you want to have them enjoy something along with you.
The second 'gift' is the part where you join with them - like, physically here. That's when you share the wine and the whatever else is going - bread, honey cakes if you are a witch (!). It's all the same thing.
The third part is called 'Choe' where - and this will be confirmed by any old school priest that you can lay your hand, right onto their collar and grab them to answer - the priest also touches the ground with the wine and the bread. Which means the material world and also the Underworld, is given also a 'gift,' but it is from a literal 'divine hand' as it were since the priest has already (ostensibly) been entered by this 'light' thing-y. Or, could be read as 'a human plus a divine hand together.'
So now here's the problem though. So far so good - 'Orbs up in sky,' far away. Easy. Not too scary that.
LOL
If you think, I cannot have these 'lights' show up in a closed room, and film it all, and have your silly 'scientists' examine it all -, you are sorely mistaken.
All the stuff that you are seeing in the Vatican, or in more or less any church, in the Anglican Saint Paul's, and definitely in a bunch of Hindu yogi-walla rituals too that look amazing - is all a bunch of BS.
Unless you are Jimi Hendrix, and you set your guitar on fire on stage, and you can play the thing for real - well unless that then it's all just copycat nonsense with no point and no meaning. No substance. Zero reality.
When that girl holds up the torch at the beginning ceremony of the Olympic Games, it's just a bad copy of something.
The bad copy - billions of people all watch and 'follow' avidly.
 |
| 'If you just give me ten million dollars...' |
The real thing, almost no one does.
I can take this right up to the ledge for you - you just think hard a moment; seriously. What can you really give as a gift, to someone that you know is so superior in every possible way to you. They have craft that jump through Time and Space. They have those fabulous (IE 'of sci-fi fable') 'Med-Beds' or 'Med-Bays.' They are really good-looking. And they can endlessly 'clone' themselves and go get different, new bodies, more or less at will.
When was the last time you, by the way, you - you, I'm talking to you - actually really enjoyed yourself. Here, on the planet. I mean hey, you want to share the endless bounty of your existence with your 'new friends' right. I mean, you don't want to just lumber them with all of your endless miseries all the time: 'Oh, woe is me, woe is me...' Yeah, really exciting.
It is an existential fact, that down through the centuries upon centuries, this whole thing has been going on like this, over and over. There isn't any 'then later -, on Judgment Day!' LOL
It's EXISTENTIAL - means it is like this, not like that. Means what exists as a material fact now. Thank you, Shirley. And yes, sure, everybody knows you want ten million dollars. (That's 'you' not Shirley MacLaine).
Emperor Constantine had that, and more.
You're looking at the wrong thing - you're looking at the... '...and the rest.' The also-rans. The great big field of losers.
It's those who want to tell you 'how it is' so long as it complies with their conditions imposed upon you.
What I said is 'you are the Emperor Constantine.' Or Genghis Khan. Or King Rama.
Why are you thinking like a loser?
The reason people formulate this stupid question - and it is a completely stupid one - about 'but just give me ten million now,' is because none of them had any kind of really momentous joy, or fun in their lives up till the moment they faced the existentialism of life and the Whole Universe. Really the question they are trying to ask is, please show me the fun, the JOY.
Yes. Hullo!
Back to the Tree of Joy. Was never the Tree of 'Life.' Life is already what you have. Joy is what you want.
 |
| Cassavetes: 'Show me the magic.' |
And for those silly enough to push their argument - you show me which bit in here is incorrect, non-factual, unable to be supported by evidentiary proof: I did not say I cannot have the Orbs show up for you - I said I'm not altruistic in that way. For me it's about real desire to do stuff.
If you want to know what makes me function, makes me do stuff, go watch Cassavetes in his 'Tempest' when he says 'Show me the magic.'
You have to be able to feel it, when he says it. Understand his meaning there.
If you 'get it' there, when you watch it, you won't say to me, 'But just if I just had ten million dollars!' Bleating.
...And those of you who still have not looked up and seen those things in the sky yet. SMH. LOL
They're there, dude.
You see them but the one time and you'll freak out. And you will totally back off quick!
I don't think there's any particular hurry though. I am personally sick and tired of 'scientists' saying anything at all. I could go grab any one of them and kick their heads into a different Time Zone at Maximum Warp Speed - if I could care less.
In life there is the Emperor Constantine, and Julius Caesar, and Shirley MacLaine and her like - and the rest; the rest are all NPC's. And that's another EXISTENTIAL FACT. Professor Jason Arday - turned out to be an NPC. Oh yes yes, looked like everything but for a long (enough) time.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your considered comments are welcome