Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

dan wrote:Cy,

I'm not in favor of guns, but I understand that some folks need that extra sense of security.  

Yesterday we were at the national Cathedral doing the flower market for Kashmir-Rose.  Today we are headed to a WCUAVC flight day at a school down here.  


Was looking at the connection between India and Greece back in the day.  In fact there was a Greco-Indian empire, created by Alexander the Great.  The mutual influence



(cont.)

dan wrote:Hmmm.........

My dear Eric, me thinks 'tis a bit early for high fives.  

But I would prefer high-fives to brick-bats, thank you very much.  

Yes, I'm the wannabe fat lady.  When my service option expires, is preempted, I'll try not to cry too much.  I've given a few folks a run for their money.  

Yes, it is my story, and I'm sticking to it, until I see something that makes more sense.  Miracles?  Nah.  That was for another time and place.  Let's see if we can move beyond that.  Phenomena?  I think there will be enough phenomena to go around, but I'm content to let others be their amanuensis.  Not my job.  


5:30ft(forum time)/4:30---------

Ron continues to be circumspect about the agenda of this meeting in the desert.  It's about trying to resolve an old issue.  The are six of ours, no surprises, and an unspecified number of the others.  Were the others like visitors?  No intelligible response.  

There is a definite protocol, and the one of ours, who seemed untrustworthy w.r.t. to it, was disinvited.  

Why would I be interested in this meeting?  Might it have anything to do with September?  No discernible response.  

There you have it.  Lean pickin's.  



(cont.)

dan wrote:Cy,

The desert rendezvous has been delayed until the first part of next month.  Whether there might have been external interference was not specified.  
---------

According to the non-dualists, the cosmos is justthis  a collection of bad karma, from which the individual attempts escape, on her own recognizance.  This karmic dung heap continues to accumulate and deteriorate, right up until the end of this fourth age, the Kali Yuga, some 20,000 years hence, in a natural conflagration.  


(cont.)

Dennis Waite wrote:"So, Swami-ji, what would you say that Advaita is?" The eager young woman crossed her legs and sat expectantly, pencil poised above a pristine pad of paper.

"It simply means ‘not two' - the ultimate truth is nondual," replied the Sage, reclining in a large and comfortable-looking armchair and not sitting in an upright lotus position, as he ought to have been, for the sake of the photograph that she had just taken, if nothing else.

She continued to wait for further elucidation before beginning to write but it soon became apparent that the answer had been given. "But is it a religion? Do you believe in God, for example?"

"Ah, well, that would depend upon what you mean by those words, wouldn't it?" he responded, irritatingly. "If, by ‘religion', you mean does it have priests and churches and a band of followers who are prepared to kill non-believers, then the answer is no. If, on the other hand, you refer to the original, literal meaning of the word, namely to ‘bind again', to reunite the mistaken person that we think we are with the Self that we truly are, then yes, it is a religion. Similarly, if by ‘God' you mean a separate, supernatural being who created the universe and will reward us by sending us to heaven if we do what He wants, then the answer is no. If you use the term in the sense of the unmanifest, non-dual reality, then yes, I most certainly do believe in God."

The pencil raced across the paper, recording the answer for the benefit of the magazine's readers but, as the words clashed with previous ideas in her memory, the lack of a clear resolution of her questions was reflected by an increasing puzzlement in her expression.

He registered this with compassion and held out his hand towards her. "Give me a piece of paper from your pad." She looked up, mouth slightly open as she wondered why he could possibly want that. But she turned the pad over, carefully tore off the bottom sheet and placed it in his outstretched hand. He turned to the table at his right and deftly began to fold and refold the paper. After a few moments, he turned back and, before she had had time to see what he had done, he held the paper aloft and launched it into the air. It rose quickly and circled gracefully around the room before losing momentum and diving to meet a sudden end when its pointed nose hit a sauce bottle on the dining table. "Could you bring it back over here do you think?" he asked.

"So, what would you say that we have here?" he asked, as she handed it back to him.

"It's a paper aeroplane," she replied, with just a hint of questioning in her voice, since the answer was so obvious that she felt he must have some other purpose in mind.

"Really?" he responded and, in an instant, he screwed up the object and, with a practised, over-arm movement, threw it effortlessly in a wide arc, from which it landed just short of the waste paper basket in the corner of the room. "And now?" he asked.

"It's a screwed-up ball of paper", she said, without any doubt in her voice this time.

"Could you bring it back again, please", he continued. She did so, wondering if this was typical of such an interview, spending the session chasing about after bits of paper like a dog running after a stick. He took the ball and carefully unfolded it, spread it out on the table and smoothed his hand over it a few times before handing it back to her. "And now it is just a sheet of paper again," he said, "although I'm afraid it's a bit crumpled now!"

He looked at her, apparently anticipating some sign of understanding if not actual revelation but none was forthcoming. He looked around the room and, after a moment, he stood up, walked over to the window and removed a rose from a vase standing in the alcove. Returning to his seat, he held the rose out to her and asked, "What is this?"

She was feeling increasingly embarrassed as it was clear he was trying to explain something fundamental, which she was not understanding. Either that or he was mad or deliberately provoking her, neither of which seemed likely, since he remained calm and open and somehow intensely present. "It's a flower," she replied eventually.

He then deliberately took one of the petals between his right-hand thumb and fore-finger and plucked it. He looked at her and said, "And now?" She didn't reply, though it seemed that this time he didn't really expect an answer. He continued to remove the petals one by one until none remained, looking up at her after each action. Finally, he pulled the remaining parts of the flower head off the stem and dropped them onto the floor, leaving the bare stalk, which he held out to her. "Where is the flower now?" he asked. Receiving no reply, he bent down and picked up all of the petals, eventually displaying them in his open hand. "Is this a flower?" he asked.

She shook her head slowly. "It was a flower only when all of the petals and the other bits were all attached to the stem."

"Good!" he said, appreciatively. "Flower is the name that we give to that particular arrangement of all of the parts. Once we have separated it into its component parts, the flower ceases to exist. But was there ever an actual, separate thing called ‘flower'? All of the material that constituted the original form is still here in these parts in my hand.

"The paper aeroplane is an even simpler example. There never was an aeroplane was there? And I don't just mean that it was only a toy. There was only ever paper. To begin with, the paper was in the form of a flat sheet for writing on. Then, I folded it in various ways so that it took on an aerodynamic shape which could fly through the air slowly. The name that we give to that form is ‘aeroplane'. When I screwed it up, the ball-shape could be thrown more accurately. ‘Aeroplane' and ‘ball' were names relating to particular forms of the paper but at all times, all that ever actually existed was paper.

"Now, this sort of analysis applies to every ‘thing' that you care to think of. Look at that table over there and this chair on which you are sitting. What are they made of? You will probably say that they are wooden chairs?"

He looked at her questioningly and she nodded, knowing at the same time that he was going to contradict her. "Well, they are made of wood certainly, but that does not mean that they are wooden chairs! On the contrary, I would say that this, that you are sitting on, is actually chairy wood, and that object over there is tably wood. What do you say to that?"

"You mean that the thing that we call ‘chair' is just a name that we give to the wood when it is that particular shape and being used for that particular function?" she asked, with understanding beginning to dawn.

"Exactly! I couldn't have put it better myself. It is quite possible that I could have a bag full of pieces of wood that can be slotted together in different ways so that at one time I might assemble them into something to sit upon, another time into something to put food upon and so on. We give the various forms distinct names and we forget that they are ONLY names and forms and not distinct and separate things.

"Look - here's an apple," he said, picking one out of the bowl on the table and casually tossing it from one hand to the other before holding it up for her to examine. "It's round or to be more accurate, spherical; its reddish in colour and it has", he sniffed it, "a fruity smell. No doubt if I were to bite into it, I would find it juicy and sweet.

"Now all of these - round, red, fruity, juicy, sweet - are adjectives describing the noun ‘apple.' Or, to use more Advaitic terms, let me say that the ‘apple' is the ‘substantive' - the apparently real, separately existing thing - and all of the other words are ‘attributes' of the apple - merely incidental qualities of the thing itself. Are you with me so far?"

She nodded hesitantly but, after a little reflection, more positively.
"But suppose I had carried out this analysis with the rose that we looked at a moment ago. I could have said that it was red, delicate, fragrant, thorny and so on. And we would have noted that all of those were simply attributes and that the actual existent thing, the substantive, was the rose. But then we went on to see that the rose wasn't real at all. It was just an assemblage of petals and sepals and so on - I'm afraid I am not a botanist! In the same way, we could say that the apple consists of seeds and flesh and skin. We may not be able to put these things together into any form different from an apple but Nature can.

"If you ask a scientist what makes an apple an apple, he will probably tell you that is the particular configuration of nucleotides in the DNA or RNA of the cells. There are many different species of apple and each one will have a slight variation in the chromosomes and it is that which differentiates the species. If you want to explain to someone what the difference is between a Bramley and a Granny Smith, you will probably say something like ‘the Bramley is large and green, used mainly for cooking and is quite sharp tasting, while the Granny Smith is still green but normally much smaller and sweeter'. But these are all adjectives or attributes. What is actually different is the physical makeup of the cell nuclei.

"But, if we look at a chromosome or a strand of DNA, are we actually looking at a self-existent, separate thing? If you look very closely through an electron microscope, you find that DNA is made up of four basic units arranged in pairs in a long, spiral chain. And any one of these units is itself made up of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, again arranged in a very specific way. So even those are not separate ‘things-in-themselves'; they are names given to particular forms of other, more fundamental things.

"And so we arrive at atoms - even the ancient Greeks used to think that everything was made up of atoms. Are these the final ‘substantives' with all of the apparent things in the world being merely attributes? Well, unfortunately not. Science has known for a long time that atoms mainly consist of empty space with electrons spinning around a central nucleus of protons and neutrons. And science has known for somewhat less time that these particles, which were once thought to be fundamental, are themselves not solid, self-existent things but are either made up of still smaller particles or are in the form of waves, merely having probabilities of existence at many different points in space.

"Still more recently, science claimed that all of the different particles are themselves made out of different combinations of just a few particles called quarks and that those are the ultimately existing things. But they have not yet progressed far enough. The simple fact of the matter is that every ‘thing' is ultimately only an attribute, a name and form superimposed upon a more fundamental substantive. We make the mistake of thinking that there really is a table, when actually there is only wood. We make the mistake of thinking that there is really wood, when actually there is only cellulose and sugars and proteins. We make the mistake of thinking there is protein when this is only a particular combination of atoms. "Ultimately, everything in the universe is seen to be only name and form of a single substantive.

The journalist was transfixed; not exactly open-mouthed but her pencil had not moved for some time. Eventually, she asked in a small voice: "But then where do I fit into all of this?"

"Ah", he replied. "That again depends upon what you mean by the word ‘I'. Who you think you are - ‘Sarah' - is essentially no different from the table and chair. You are simply name and form, imposed upon the non-dual reality. Who you really are, however... well, that is quite different - you are that nondual reality. You see, in the final analysis, there are not two things; there is only nonduality. That is the truth; that is Advaita.

garzparz wrote:When I speak, I always speak for myself. Reactions, well everyone gets to deal with those on their own

Just general life drama. I come here to watch your drama too.

Cyrellys wrote:


Well guns have their place, but that wasn't the point...the point was that Hillary equates gun possession with violent individuals or groups and I think I quite clearly illustrated the problem with that kind of thinking by saying I've never been responsible for hurting someone.  

I'm not a violent person and my record attests to that.  Hillary however is responsible for the deaths of two exemplary military members and one Ambassador, all by design.  She also responsible for the arrests and loss of career of one General and one Admiral who attempted to send in a rescue party.  They would have been successful in the rescue and then the creation of ISIS and the gun running that contributed to it would have been exposed.  Nothing like wiping the proof of criminal wrong doing off the map to protect your own arse Hildebeast?  Like any of us would forget and forgive her?  Hillary apparently doesn't own guns and yet she's been responsible for the ending of at least three lives and two careers.  She's five ahead of this gun owner.  And that's just what we happen to know about.  There's rumors her and her prior hubby were involved in the drug trade of Arkansas and S. America...then there's China and Walmart.  I could go on but what's the point.  Truth is too old fashioned and justice is also out-dated.  

I'm a Celt so truth and justice is not a cultural trait in the eyes of the modern umbrella society which refuses to acknowledge those traits as part of the nation's psyche, but rather as a personal neurosis that they'd probably insist a straightjacket and heavy medication be applied to if I were within reach in DC.  Truth and justice equals neurosis?  What kind of thinking is that?!!  But that's the spew emerging from orgs like DHS since its inception.  So when it comes to commentary, turn-about-is-fair-play.  They and their flunkies make snide comments about us and we return the favor.  

Cyrellys wrote:

dan wrote:Cy,

Centrisms.........?

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
   Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
   The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
   The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
   The best lack all conviction, while the worst
   Are full of passionate intensity.

Is this what you want, Cy?  Be mindful of what you wish for!

After all this time Dan you still misunderstand me.  When I spoke of centrisms I was speaking of the constructs to which large swaths of humanity cling.  You yourself named many of them.

For at least four centuries, the idea of material progress has occupied the imaginations of the best of us.  As that light fades, we have lost all sense of direction.  And this at a time when the world's resources are being stretched to the limit.  

After all this time you still misunderstand me.  Yes materialism is an issue.  But mankind has not mastered the soul skills as yet to surmount the issues of materialism.  You are putting the cart before the horse.  

Additionally the world's resources are stretched to the limit because of machinations, deceit, and purposeful limiting of production and distribution.  The shelves are bare by design.  The herd is problematic and culling the herd is on the table.  Why produce when you care not for the herd?  Why produce when the governor of production is ideologically compromised?  If you need an example of this, look how the elites were obligated to provide the general population via lottery a certain number of positions in the dumbs which technology was provided with the express expectation that self-servancy was not involved.

If we are not to revert to dog-eat-dog, we must entertain a new vision.  Where is your vision, Cy?

Dan we ARE reverting to dog-eat-dog...or rather not we, but the remaining elite led system lords.  It suits their purpose to shut down a failing economic system they stripped bare to secure their own, the rest be damned.  This was entirely unavoidable.  The vast masses had the innate capability to see in ways the elite leadership did not...and to build and problem solve in ways they did not.  But they circled their wagons and shut out the world; leaving the world to wallow in confusion, psychological operations, and much more...need another example?  Then explain why the system lords altered Maxwells equations and why they have deliberately shunned and buried Tesla?  Lockheed Skunkworks knows precisely what I'm talking about.  Goddard and Von Braun would have known precisely what I'm referring to.


Yes, the world has been engineered, but not by the PtB.  It is a construct of VALIS, and we are the past and the future of VALIS.  VALIS is our Telos.  We are the Chrysalis, about to break out of its Cocoon.  This is what Disclosure is about.  

Dan after all this time you still misunderstand me.  The human race if allowed to mature naturally would have been the Chrysalis in good time.  But there has been deliberate alterations of its necessary environment; gmo's, chemtrailing, corexit, fukushima, high volumes of unshielded electromagnetism from primitive electrical technology, etc.  The shear resiliency in human society we see today is a credit to humanity's potential.  And that resiliency goes unrecognized and despised by the apex hunters in the pond.

Your imagination, Cy, has not yet risen to this challenge.  You much prefer the machinations of your dark conspiracies.  They require only a negative imagination on your part.  Where is your positive imagination?

Dan after all this time you still misunderstand me...I am here because there is a problem with continuity.  You still only see a simple conspiracy theorist after all that has been said and done.  You could not define Roar if your life at this moment depended upon it, because you have been too close to your desired incendiary arc.  Where is my positive imagination?  All around you.  Within you.  Within this forum.  Within the work I do toward preservation of the herd.  The dragonfly does not expect his aim to be readily taken up.  His work is like that of the planter -- for the future.  His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way.  He lives and labors and hopes with the poet who says:

Schaff', das Tagwerk meiner Hande,
Hohes Gluck, dass ich's vollende!
Lass, o lass mich nicht ermatten!
Nein, es sind nicht leere Traume:
Jetzt nur Stange, diese Baume
Geben einst noch Frucht und Schatten.

trans.
Daily work--my hands' employment,
To complete is pure enjoyment!
Let, oh, let me never falter!
No! there is no empty dreaming:
Lo! these trees, but bare poles seeming,
Yet will yield both fruit and shelter!
Goethe's "Hope", translation by William Gibson, Com. U.S.N.  

FiOs:

Three followers of wisdom:  imagination, purpose, and endeavor. -- Irish Triad

FiOs ~ "Vision, Memory, Dream" Berla Feini (old Irish), "Knowledge" Modern Irish.

In singing, in exploring our connection to our Spirit and the Creative Source, then turning to examine our Reality, what we thought was only Imagination or only a Dream is revealed to be the most powerful Truth of all...  

You and your patriot militias are armed to the teeth, but you cower in the dark.  If the PtB conspire to do anything, they conspire to keep the masses in fear and darkness.  Do not be their running dog.  

Dan there is a huge difference between cowering in the dark and what we are doing.  If you knew anything about militias you would not make such a statement as the one above.  Militias are differentiated from armies by the fact they are purely local defense.  They are members of communities who are trained to defend those communities against external assault.  It is not their place to do as the elites do and run around the planet exacting regime change on hapless nations whether those deserve it or not.  Their cause to act in defense or withhold it in silence is nothing more than the high ground of human virtue

I am not the running dog of fear or darkness.  I bend knee to only one entity in this universe and that is the Source; I defend life and liberty.  And if the Source puts me in play as it did when the system inhabitants behind the UN Meeting moved to wipe this forum off the map under cover of the machinations of the anti-disclosure headhunters out of Amkon and Reality Uncovered two years ago, then I will act as directed.  You have a home because that command by the Source to preserve OMFv.1 & forum.  And Footman still has opportunity be other than a member of the dark side in full view of the general population because of it.  And the interservice group behind the UN Meeting still has a place at the table at anytime of their choosing because of it.  And others like the Daniel Allon group have an open door to the general population because of it...even when this tangible asset is not directly used does not mean the metaphor it represents is not actively in play.  Is stasis is still in place?  How would you know?  What do you know of what I do across the net or in person? I point this out Dan, because you need to see how you only see what you want to see.  The utilitarian perspective in the face of a door wide open.  As I said, after all this time you still misunderstand me.  I am ROAR.  I am a manifestation of the fabric of our reality and the intent of the Source.  I am home in this time by design.

Fear is simply the lack of hope.  I have never heard a word of hope out of you, Cy.  You seem only to strive to snuff out whatever glimmers of hope may arise, here and there.  

After all this time you still misunderstand me.  What is your definition of hope Dan?  It is only your articulated expectations?  Is there no room for the Source?  Or for perception of the implications an apprentice sets at the table?  If I am warlike it is only in the face of the destroyers.  It is a measured approach...only that which is necessary.  (Yard-farm in my presence and you will reap what you sow, oh watchers)  I am as gentle as the application of he or she who approaches.  Did I not oh watchers, treat well the first photographer?  Did I not intervene and lend reassurance at the visitation of the second, oh watchers?  Have I not treated both accounts with humor, oh watchers -- you who know precisely to which I refer.  I did understand and acknowledge the approach was not intended as hostile...red-head wielding channel-changer aside, lol.  My apologies Dan, but these were events you were never informed about.

Your only hope lies in the blood of whomever you tag as the day's tyrants.  They have less hope, and more fear than do you.  Your fear only feeds their fear.  It is a vicious, downward spiral, don't you know.

My fear?  Other than speaking out against the suicide of humankind and by consequence the Earth and its other living inhabitants, what fear have I ever expressed?  

Poised fury over transgressions against the Source's construction of nationhood on this Earth?  That's not the same thing as fear.  They choose soft tyranny in the form of socialism on their lips and yet practice for wholesale abject tyranny in Texas and New Mexico..and perhaps Yellowstone & the New Madrid if the Allon group is accurate?  My hand is still stayed Dan.  You haven't seen blood yet.  Nor have you seen the Peace this world is capable of.  Where have I yet destroyed Free Will?  Blocked destruction, aye you could accuse me a few times of that.  But not of destruction of Free Will or of Opportunity or of Potential.  Do not these three things qualify as uplifting HOPE?!!!


Justice is mine, sayeth the Lord.........

You portray yourself as the sharp point of God's sword of wrath.  Gird your loins with your love, not with steel.  Where is your mustard seed of faith?  It seems to have been lost in the fury of your convictions.  

Dan Oh how I would if I could gird with love.  But there are humans in this world who abide nothing but the sheer manifestation of force in all its many forms.  They respect not life, nor the virtues to which we aspire.  Dan, there are some things truly worth fighting for.  The Source understands this, and if abject evil wants a fight, then a fight like no other it shall have.


1pm---------

God need only lift a finger, and, yes, I aim to be that finger....... of truth, against all odds, of course.  Would we wish for any less?  Should we hope for anything more than the simple Truth?

Do you wish to be that finger Dan?  Then you must see what you have not yet seen.  You must be willing to allow it within your life as a partnership.  You are very married to your ideology...so I wonder if you could accomplish that?  I have seen you quick to judge rather than relate.  Could you relinquish your need to judge and prefab in favor of a natural relationship?

For example, you exclude all but a UTH what then in the face of unambiguity when the person you meet is very tangible?  Can all the universe co-exist with your suppositions and expectations if one is not directly congruent with the other?

Sometimes when we point fingers there are three others pointing right back at us precluding our intent.  

Many have said to me....... yes, the truth is fine, but the rest of humanity needs to have their truth filtered and rationed into bitesize portions, lest they choke.  

In that remark to you they are wrong.  It is an example of youth to treat their fellows without equal respect.  What makes them more right to possess any truth in its entirety than anyone else?  This is where they err.  And by erring they box themselves into a corner they cannot escape and often they drag others down with them.

But that is not the way the cosmos works.  That is not the way simplicity works.  

Eureka!  This you and I can wholly agree on.

"Few truths are personally coherent."........

Cy, show me a truth that is impersonal, and I will show you a hollow abstraction.  

"Show me a truth that is impersonal..."  Soul Death.  The destruction of souls is et finis.  This potentiality on this world with this group of living beings, has the Source and the Others in great distress...it is not the same as Death with its cycle of reincarnation.  Evil is found among those who would steal life en toto from others to secure only themselves...they would utilize events and technologies they have no business using to ensure what they perceive as their competition does not continue and the road lays free and clear for themselves.  This is not acceptable.

"And our world most certainly is not coherent.".........

And who told you this?  Was it religion or science, or both?  

The acts of man; the words of man; the silence of man; the unconcern of man...for those with ears to hear and eyes to see.


But, Cy, true enough, the coherence of a Chrysalis is almost entirely hidden, and the transforming caterpillar cells wander about in complex patterns until they reach their newly designated attractor loci within the nascent butterfly embryo.  It is like a crystal forming in a supersaturated solute.  It is simple beauty, out of complexity.  

On this we agree, with one small adjustment...."...it is simple beauty of complexity."

The entire process is miraculous/teleological, and don't let science try to tell you otherwise.  If you buy that one, there is a bridge in Brooklyn for you, as well.

Dan, humanity is not the first to walk these roads.  Is it wondrous? Yes. But it is a broad horizon and each reaches it in their own good time.

How do I have a mustard seed of faith in the Telos?  Because, my own little ego-conscious self is that selfsame mustard seed.  That's how I know.  Can I know anything less?  Ask Descartes, bless his little heart.  

Your faith is well placed.  But your jalopy can travel no faster than the rpms of its engine.  And where might we find Descartes today?  Among the ravens in the library?

Cyrellys




(cont.)