Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [steiner] Re: Posts not going thru? heretics of reality

Expand Messages
  • Cheeseandsalsa@aol.com
    For me being a heretic of reality is just a way of expressing the fact that we all the time have to be vigilant about truth. Its about looking at things
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      For me "being a heretic of reality" is just a way of expressing the fact that we all the time have to be vigilant about truth.  Its about looking at things from different perspectives.  Not a white bread eating kind of diet.  Its about embracing the mystery of all that is.  Its about embracing the idea "what is reality?"  Not to mention I love the meaning and history behind the word "heretic." Chantel
    • thepathofthesunflower
      Hi Chantel Thanks for your reply. What you said makes good sense; looking at things from a different perspective. This saying lends towards this; If the
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 8, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Chantel

        Thanks for your reply. What you said makes good sense; looking at
        things from a different perspective. This saying lends towards this;

        "If the nature of the correspondence between the higher and the lower
        is understood, then the spiritual may be read through its physical
        symbol". If i am correct Blake said this.

        I do think there a many dimensions to reality (did Steiner say there
        are eight known dimensions in the physical plane) although the
        physical also superimposed with the spiritual planes. How far or how
        deep can we penetrate into these dimensions; entering into the fifth
        dimension (although Im guessing at what number dimension) the world
        then seems to become a stage - the actors and props seem to become
        shadows waiting for senses to fill them in.

        This might be a follow on to Lee's discussions which I might just
        copy my last line and carry on there .. and ponder at bit more
        because his topic is the same as this 'heretic of reality' topic.
        And it is a great mystery!

        Chantel; the meaning and history of heretic like in anti-organised
        belief systems?

        My ponderings
        Caryn
      • Durward Starman
        ******* I don t know of anywhere Steiner said there are only 8 dimensions. He lectured a lot about the fourth dimension, which was a large topic amongst
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 9, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          ******* I don't know of anywhere Steiner said there are only 8 dimensions.
          He lectured a lot about the fourth dimension, which was a large topic
          amongst Theosophists a century ago (those lectures have recently been
          published and are available from Steinerbooks).

          The 4th dimension sort of stands as a symbol for "a possible 4th and all
          other higher dimensions". One of the Theosophists working on this was P.D.
          Ouspensky, whose book "Tertium Organum" was recommended by the Edgar Cayce
          Readings fior understanding the 4th Dimension. (Interestingly, Cayce never
          recommended any of his later works, done aftrer Ouspensky came under the
          influence of Gurdjieff.) From working with the thinking & perception
          exercises in that for many years and studying projective geometry, I'd say
          there's no reason why there should be any limit on the number of dimensions
          in the universe. From the mathematicians' point of view they must be
          infinite.

          Starman

          www.DrStarman.com





          >From: "thepathofthesunflower" <thepathofthesunflower@...>
          >Reply-To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
          >To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: [steiner] heretics of reality
          >Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:28:13 -0000
          >
          >Hi Chantel
          >
          >Thanks for your reply. What you said makes good sense; looking at
          >things from a different perspective. This saying lends towards this;
          >
          >"If the nature of the correspondence between the higher and the lower
          >is understood, then the spiritual may be read through its physical
          >symbol". If i am correct Blake said this.
          >
          >I do think there a many dimensions to reality (did Steiner say there
          >are eight known dimensions in the physical plane) although the
          >physical also superimposed with the spiritual planes. How far or how
          >deep can we penetrate into these dimensions; entering into the fifth
          >dimension (although Im guessing at what number dimension) the world
          >then seems to become a stage - the actors and props seem to become
          >shadows waiting for senses to fill them in.
          >
          >This might be a follow on to Lee's discussions which I might just
          >copy my last line and carry on there .. and ponder at bit more
          >because his topic is the same as this 'heretic of reality' topic.
          >And it is a great mystery!
          >
          >Chantel; the meaning and history of heretic like in anti-organised
          >belief systems?
          >
          >My ponderings
          >Caryn
          >
          >
          >

          _________________________________________________________________
          Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more�then map the best
          route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
        • Cheeseandsalsa@aol.com
          Chantel; the meaning and history of heretic like in anti-organised belief systems? The history of the heretic. The history and definition. We all seem to be
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 9, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Chantel; the meaning and history of heretic like in anti-organised
            belief systems?

            The history of the heretic.  The history and definition.  We all seem to be heretics don't you think?  Honestly, we all are heretics of everything.  American Heritage Dictionary definition: "One who holds opinions that differ from established beliefs, esp. religious beliefs."  Furthermore, who establishes belief systems?  Should we trust them?  What is really established anyway?  This topic reminds me of the Spanish inquisition.  Isn't it just madness?  This dimension creates madness and belief systems are held in place for thousands of years.  Hale, the progress of the consciousness soul!  Thank god we survived the intellectual one!  In good fun, Chantel 
          • Cheeseandsalsa@aol.com
            I agree on the infinite number of dimensions. Also the time=dimension idea I enjoy that theory. In our modern time shall we say a dimension of an ancient
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 9, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              I agree on the infinite number of dimensions.  Also the time=dimension idea I enjoy that theory.  In our modern time shall we say a dimension of an ancient civilization can pop up in the year 2006?  For example imagine Ancient Egypt popping up in 2006?  It seems crazy but entertaining enough as a theory.  I'm not even a beginner on this topic however. ~good things, Chantel
            • thepathofthesunflower
              ... seem to be ... everything. ... that differ from ... establishes ... anyway? ... madness? ... place for ... soul! Thank god we ... Hi Chantel Yes, you so
              Message 6 of 10 , Nov 10, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Cheeseandsalsa@... wrote:
                >
                > Chantel; the meaning and history of heretic like in anti-organised
                > belief systems?
                >
                > The history of the heretic. The history and definition. We all
                seem to be
                > heretics don't you think? Honestly, we all are heretics of
                everything.
                > American Heritage Dictionary definition: "One who holds opinions
                that differ from
                > established beliefs, esp. religious beliefs." Furthermore, who
                establishes
                > belief systems? Should we trust them? What is really established
                anyway?
                > This topic reminds me of the Spanish inquisition. Isn't it just
                madness?
                > This dimension creates madness and belief systems are held in
                place for
                > thousands of years. Hale, the progress of the consciousness
                soul! Thank god we
                > survived the intellectual one! In good fun, Chantel

                Hi Chantel

                Yes, you so right we all heretics of one thing or another! Also, for
                example, my perception of one thing might be entirely different from
                your perception. Although it is the same object or belief the
                meaning it gives to you might be totally different from the meaning I
                take from it. Just as well else we'd be clones, robotic clones; just
                imagine that :) Caryn
              • thepathofthesunflower
                ... dimensions. ... topic ... been ... and all ... was P.D. ... Edgar Cayce ... Cayce never ... under the ... perception ... I d say ... dimensions ... be ...
                Message 7 of 10 , Nov 10, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman" <DrStarman@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > ******* I don't know of anywhere Steiner said there are only 8
                  dimensions.
                  > He lectured a lot about the fourth dimension, which was a large
                  topic
                  > amongst Theosophists a century ago (those lectures have recently
                  been
                  > published and are available from Steinerbooks).
                  >
                  > The 4th dimension sort of stands as a symbol for "a possible 4th
                  and all
                  > other higher dimensions". One of the Theosophists working on this
                  was P.D.
                  > Ouspensky, whose book "Tertium Organum" was recommended by the
                  Edgar Cayce
                  > Readings fior understanding the 4th Dimension. (Interestingly,
                  Cayce never
                  > recommended any of his later works, done aftrer Ouspensky came
                  under the
                  > influence of Gurdjieff.) From working with the thinking &
                  perception
                  > exercises in that for many years and studying projective geometry,
                  I'd say
                  > there's no reason why there should be any limit on the number of
                  dimensions
                  > in the universe. From the mathematicians' point of view they must
                  be
                  > infinite.
                  >
                  > Starman
                  >
                  > www.DrStarman.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > >From: "thepathofthesunflower" <thepathofthesunflower@...>
                  > >Reply-To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                  > >To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                  > >Subject: [steiner] heretics of reality
                  > >Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:28:13 -0000
                  > >
                  > >Hi Chantel
                  > >
                  > >Thanks for your reply. What you said makes good sense; looking at
                  > >things from a different perspective. This saying lends towards
                  this;
                  > >
                  > >"If the nature of the correspondence between the higher and the
                  lower
                  > >is understood, then the spiritual may be read through its physical
                  > >symbol". If i am correct Blake said this.
                  > >
                  > >I do think there a many dimensions to reality (did Steiner say
                  there
                  > >are eight known dimensions in the physical plane) although the
                  > >physical also superimposed with the spiritual planes. How far or
                  how
                  > >deep can we penetrate into these dimensions; entering into the
                  fifth
                  > >dimension (although Im guessing at what number dimension) the world
                  > >then seems to become a stage - the actors and props seem to become
                  > >shadows waiting for senses to fill them in.
                  > >
                  > >This might be a follow on to Lee's discussions which I might just
                  > >copy my last line and carry on there .. and ponder at bit more
                  > >because his topic is the same as this 'heretic of reality' topic.
                  > >And it is a great mystery!
                  > >
                  > >Chantel; the meaning and history of heretic like in anti-organised
                  > >belief systems?
                  > >
                  > >My ponderings
                  > >Caryn
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  > _________________________________________________________________
                  >
                  Thanks for pointing this out Dr Starman; I did read eight dimensions
                  somewhere a time ago. It might not have been Dr Steiner; I will go
                  through my literature again and hopefully find this passage.

                  My regards
                  Caryn
                • thepathofthesunflower
                  ... time=dimension idea ... of an ... imagine Ancient ... as a theory. ... Chantel ... Yes, imagine Ancient Egypt popping up in a shopping mall! Somehow I
                  Message 8 of 10 , Nov 10, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Cheeseandsalsa@... wrote:
                    >
                    > I agree on the infinite number of dimensions. Also the
                    time=dimension idea
                    > I enjoy that theory. In our modern time shall we say a dimension
                    of an
                    > ancient civilization can pop up in the year 2006? For example
                    imagine Ancient
                    > Egypt popping up in 2006? It seems crazy but entertaining enough
                    as a theory.
                    > I'm not even a beginner on this topic however. ~good things,
                    Chantel
                    >

                    Yes, imagine Ancient Egypt popping up in a shopping mall! Somehow I
                    think Gravity acts as a stopper for this to happen in real time, if
                    I'm correct.

                    I also enjoy thinking about : time / space (could) = dimensions. I
                    have this on hand from Dr Steiner from the book 'Life beyond Death'
                    pg 213 lecture Berlin 5 Feb 1918;

                    quote Dr Steiner-
                    'There the saying is true, spoken with remarkable intuition by
                    Richard Wagner:'Time becomes space' (taken from a scene in
                    Parsifal)
                    In the supersensible world, time really does become space - one point
                    of space here, another there. Time is not past, but only a point of
                    space, near or far; time actually becomes supersensible space ... but
                    the past is not 'past' in the supersensible world. It is there; it
                    remains, and to encounter it one needs only to relate oneself to
                    another place. The past is just as little done away with as the
                    house we have left to come here to-night. The house is in its place;
                    so, too, in the supersensible world, the past is not gone but is in
                    its place. It depends upon ourselves and upon how far we have gone
                    from them, how near or far we are from the dead. We can be very far,
                    or very near'.

                    :)
                  • Durward Starman
                    ******* Well, as I said, I have worked with the book Tertium Organum by P. D. Ouspensky for many years, and it contains thinking exercises derived from the
                    Message 9 of 10 , Nov 11, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ******* Well, as I said, I have worked with the book "Tertium Organum" by P.
                      D. Ouspensky for many years, and it contains thinking exercises derived from
                      the work of the mathematician Hinton, the Theosophist that Steiner also
                      lectured on. I'll tell you a bit out of the book, but it's just like
                      iGoethe' s theory of colors ---- it's one thing to hear it as a theory, and
                      another to do the exercises and arrive at the perception yourself. So I'll
                      try to put it in a way we are you can see what's meant, rather than just say
                      that the theory says this and that.

                      One of the starting points mathematicians used to approach understanding
                      the fourth dimension a century ago was what was then the well-known "
                      Flatland analogy". If you imagine a plane of two dimensions and a being
                      living in it, he or she or it would only be able to perceive what is in that
                      plane. A three-dimensional object -- -- -- or rather, an object which WE can
                      perceive in three dimensions -- -- -- could only be known by the plane being
                      as the section of it which is in its plane. Imagine a cube, for instance,
                      passing through the "flatlander's" plane: if it passed through it
                      perpendicular to the plane, the plane being could perceive only a SQUARE. as
                      that section of the cube passed through its plane. If it didn't pass
                      through perpendicularly, but rather first one corner passed through, then
                      the rest of the cube, the plane being would sense a changing variety of
                      figures, starting from a point when the corner first penetrated the plane,
                      expanding into a growing square, and so forth. {This would of course be
                      easier to explain with the help of drawings, but most people here have their
                      e-mail set to either not rerceive images included or attached, or else they
                      just go to the web site to read the messages, and embedded images are not
                      saved there, so if I go through all the trouble of creating the drawings and
                      then refer to them, what I say would make no sense to somebody unable to see
                      them. C'est la vie....)

                      Hinton and Ouspensky go from this to analogize our experience of
                      three-dimensional space. Whatever one a being cannot sense as a dimension of
                      space, it senses as changes in the space it can perceive. So, if we see a
                      series of changes in three-dimensional space, that can be understood as an
                      object having a fourth dimension which we can't perceive as one, passing
                      through our three-dimensional space. In other words, the higher dimensions
                      of the objects in the world around us ---- which we cannot yet perceive as
                      dimensions the way we currently perceive the length, width and depth of
                      objects----- instead of being perceived as a static dimension of space in an
                      object, appear to us as a series of CHANGES to our space, in other words
                      what we call change in time.

                      So, the appearance of a plant out of its seed into its young form, then
                      the lower shoot becoming the root and the upper shoot the stem, the growth
                      of leaves, then the formation of flowers and fruit---- all this is a series
                      of changes in an object through time to us, but to a being who can see the
                      fourth and other higher dimensions, those are all parts of the object's
                      shape. It does not come into existence and then disappear in time, but
                      rather that appears to happen to us because of the limitation of our
                      perceptions----- just as, before a cube passes through the Flatlander's
                      space, the square section of the cube that he will perceive, he would say is
                      in the future, while once it passes through the plane, he would say the
                      figures that appeared in his space are now something in the past.

                      This is the true connection between the idea of the fourth dimension, or
                      rather fourth and all possible higher dimensions, and Time. Many people were
                      experimenting with these ideas a century ago, but the person who arrived at
                      the true solution, Ouspensky, was largely ignored, while the person who
                      arrived at the false solution, Einstein, was made into a god by people who
                      proclaimed he had solved a great mystery while not understanding his stupid
                      theory in the least. (I'm speaking about his general theory of relativity,
                      which is an absurd mishmash and which has completely ruined the ability of
                      people to think about these things in the way that helps lead to the
                      spiritual aspect -- but then, one couldn't expect anything Einstein did to
                      lead to the spiritual. Just look at the way he treated his wife, and the way
                      he led a spaced-out life in New Jersey. It's absolutely amazing how the
                      scientific establishment has put him over as an intellectual giant to people
                      who never study what he actually speculated---- but then look how they've
                      made everyone believers in Darwin whose followers have still found zero
                      evidence for his theory. )

                      In relation to human life, as you say this also leads to an understanding
                      of how one period of time is related to another. There's another great book,
                      " A Dweller on Two Planets", a history of Atlantis which was spirit-dictated
                      in the 1880s to a young man in California by a being who called himself
                      Phylos the Thibetan, which Edgar Cayce used to quote from in his readings
                      and which is well worth studying by anthroposophists. In it he also explains
                      the correspondence of epochs by the analogy of a screw thread passing
                      through a plane: with a full turn, you are back at the same place on the
                      screw but on a higher level. So he says we in America are Atlantis come
                      back, but not exactly the same as Atlantis was, because we have progressed.
                      Looking at a shorter period of time, our age can also be understood as a
                      repetition of the Egyptian civilization according to Steiner.

                      The correspondence, like many other phenomena, is understandable once
                      you expand the concepts "object" and "dimensions" as Tertium Orgnaum shows a
                      way to do. But as I said, just hearing someone summarize it is very
                      different from doing the thinking/perception exercises yourself. That's a
                      great place to begin.

                      -Starman


                      [steiner] heretics of reality/dimensions
                      >Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 14:57:22 EST
                      >
                      >I agree on the infinite number of dimensions. Also the time=dimension
                      >idea
                      >I enjoy that theory. In our modern time shall we say Theosophist dimension
                      >of an
                      >ancient civilization can pop up in the year 2006? For example imagine
                      >Ancient
                      >Egypt popping up in 2006? It seems crazy but entertaining enough as a
                      >theory.
                      >I'm not even a beginner on this topic however. ~good things, Chantel

                      _________________________________________________________________
                      Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
                      trip!
                      http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
                    • thepathofthesunflower
                      ... Organum by P. ... derived from ... also ... like ... theory, and ... So I ll ... just say ... understanding ... known ... being ... is in that ... which
                      Message 10 of 10 , Nov 13, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman" <DrStarman@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > ******* Well, as I said, I have worked with the book "Tertium
                        Organum" by P.
                        > D. Ouspensky for many years, and it contains thinking exercises
                        derived from
                        > the work of the mathematician Hinton, the Theosophist that Steiner
                        also
                        > lectured on. I'll tell you a bit out of the book, but it's just
                        like
                        > iGoethe' s theory of colors ---- it's one thing to hear it as a
                        theory, and
                        > another to do the exercises and arrive at the perception yourself.
                        So I'll
                        > try to put it in a way we are you can see what's meant, rather than
                        just say
                        > that the theory says this and that.
                        >
                        > One of the starting points mathematicians used to approach
                        understanding
                        > the fourth dimension a century ago was what was then the well-
                        known "
                        > Flatland analogy". If you imagine a plane of two dimensions and a
                        being
                        > living in it, he or she or it would only be able to perceive what
                        is in that
                        > plane. A three-dimensional object -- -- -- or rather, an object
                        which WE can
                        > perceive in three dimensions -- -- -- could only be known by the
                        plane being
                        > as the section of it which is in its plane. Imagine a cube, for
                        instance,
                        > passing through the "flatlander's" plane: if it passed through it
                        > perpendicular to the plane, the plane being could perceive only a
                        SQUARE. as
                        > that section of the cube passed through its plane. If it didn't
                        pass
                        > through perpendicularly, but rather first one corner passed
                        through, then
                        > the rest of the cube, the plane being would sense a changing
                        variety of
                        > figures, starting from a point when the corner first penetrated the
                        plane,
                        > expanding into a growing square, and so forth. {This would of
                        course be
                        > easier to explain with the help of drawings, but most people here
                        have their
                        > e-mail set to either not rerceive images included or attached, or
                        else they
                        > just go to the web site to read the messages, and embedded images
                        are not
                        > saved there, so if I go through all the trouble of creating the
                        drawings and
                        > then refer to them, what I say would make no sense to somebody
                        unable to see
                        > them. C'est la vie....)
                        >
                        > Hinton and Ouspensky go from this to analogize our experience of
                        > three-dimensional space. Whatever one a being cannot sense as a
                        dimension of
                        > space, it senses as changes in the space it can perceive. So, if we
                        see a
                        > series of changes in three-dimensional space, that can be
                        understood as an
                        > object having a fourth dimension which we can't perceive as one,
                        passing
                        > through our three-dimensional space. In other words, the higher
                        dimensions
                        > of the objects in the world around us ---- which we cannot yet
                        perceive as
                        > dimensions the way we currently perceive the length, width and
                        depth of
                        > objects----- instead of being perceived as a static dimension of
                        space in an
                        > object, appear to us as a series of CHANGES to our space, in other
                        words
                        > what we call change in time.
                        >
                        > So, the appearance of a plant out of its seed into its young
                        form, then
                        > the lower shoot becoming the root and the upper shoot the stem, the
                        growth
                        > of leaves, then the formation of flowers and fruit---- all this is
                        a series
                        > of changes in an object through time to us, but to a being who can
                        see the
                        > fourth and other higher dimensions, those are all parts of the
                        object's
                        > shape. It does not come into existence and then disappear in time,
                        but
                        > rather that appears to happen to us because of the limitation of
                        our
                        > perceptions----- just as, before a cube passes through the
                        Flatlander's
                        > space, the square section of the cube that he will perceive, he
                        would say is
                        > in the future, while once it passes through the plane, he would say
                        the
                        > figures that appeared in his space are now something in the past.
                        >
                        > This is the true connection between the idea of the fourth
                        dimension, or
                        > rather fourth and all possible higher dimensions, and Time. Many
                        people were
                        > experimenting with these ideas a century ago, but the person who
                        arrived at
                        > the true solution, Ouspensky, was largely ignored, while the person
                        who
                        > arrived at the false solution, Einstein, was made into a god by
                        people who
                        > proclaimed he had solved a great mystery while not understanding
                        his stupid
                        > theory in the least. (I'm speaking about his general theory of
                        relativity,
                        > which is an absurd mishmash and which has completely ruined the
                        ability of
                        > people to think about these things in the way that helps lead to
                        the
                        > spiritual aspect -- but then, one couldn't expect anything Einstein
                        did to
                        > lead to the spiritual. Just look at the way he treated his wife,
                        and the way
                        > he led a spaced-out life in New Jersey. It's absolutely amazing
                        how the
                        > scientific establishment has put him over as an intellectual giant
                        to people
                        > who never study what he actually speculated---- but then look how
                        they've
                        > made everyone believers in Darwin whose followers have still found
                        zero
                        > evidence for his theory. )
                        >
                        > In relation to human life, as you say this also leads to an
                        understanding
                        > of how one period of time is related to another. There's another
                        great book,
                        > " A Dweller on Two Planets", a history of Atlantis which was spirit-
                        dictated
                        > in the 1880s to a young man in California by a being who called
                        himself
                        > Phylos the Thibetan, which Edgar Cayce used to quote from in his
                        readings
                        > and which is well worth studying by anthroposophists. In it he also
                        explains
                        > the correspondence of epochs by the analogy of a screw thread
                        passing
                        > through a plane: with a full turn, you are back at the same place
                        on the
                        > screw but on a higher level. So he says we in America are Atlantis
                        come
                        > back, but not exactly the same as Atlantis was, because we have
                        progressed.
                        > Looking at a shorter period of time, our age can also be understood
                        as a
                        > repetition of the Egyptian civilization according to Steiner.
                        >
                        > The correspondence, like many other phenomena, is
                        understandable once
                        > you expand the concepts "object" and "dimensions" as Tertium
                        Orgnaum shows a
                        > way to do. But as I said, just hearing someone summarize it is very
                        > different from doing the thinking/perception exercises yourself.
                        That's a
                        > great place to begin.
                        >
                        > -Starman
                        >
                        >
                        Hi

                        I have one book of PD Ouspensky's 'The psychology of man's possible
                        evolution' which I throughly enjoyed and think it deserve's a re-
                        reading soon. I wouldn't mind reading Tertium Orgnaum.

                        I totally agree with what you say regarding Einstein. If i am right
                        to say this train of 'undimensional squashed thought' started with
                        Aristotle disregarding the quintessence, the very susbstance which
                        holds things together. Because it cannot be measured it is
                        disregarded.

                        Democractic intelligence reaching its point of no return; me thinks.

                        It is co-incidential you write about Atlantis, Starman. Over the
                        weekend I was re-reading 'Lemuria the lost continent of the Pacific'
                        published by the Rosicrucian Order of California 1931. And what you
                        say in America .. Atlantis come back. It does seem like a cycle, Dr
                        Steiner's Samsara symbol might describe this well on a macro scale.

                        To me; what is happening in the world today is exactly the same prior
                        to the destruction of Atlantis the only thing which is different is
                        the background.

                        Although, the Atlantians and prior the Lemurians had reached
                        a 'civilization' (not our understanding of civilization today) far
                        beyond ours of today. They were so advanced in their relationship to
                        the Cosmic Mind. First of all operating in a moneyless society
                        (shows are great deal of maurity to do this) and second having their
                        pineal organ developed to such a degree that sixth sense connecting
                        to the Cosmic mind was normal. Also they had knowledge of the fill
                        potential use of minerals and metals; therefore having air and sea
                        vehicles.

                        With the sinking of these two great continents and migrating (to the
                        East and Egypt) This organ become under-developed. It was a literal
                        organ - a 'bump' protruding from the forehead. It is said with
                        practice in developing this organ it will come back through the
                        generations. California is part of the original Lemuria, very
                        special.

                        Interesting you also talk about the writings 'A Dweller on Two
                        Planets' dictated by the being Phylos talking about Atlantis, to
                        someone in California.

                        I have a book 'Atlantis to the Latter Days' It is known as
                        the 'Osirian Scripts' inspirationally dictated to HC Randall-Stevens
                        by the Masters Oneferu and Adolemy of the Osirian Group. Adolemy
                        being incarnate under the name Osiraes (not to be confused with
                        Osiris) in the reigns of Amenhotep III & IV and Oneferu been
                        incarnate under the name of Men-Aton during the reign of Akhnaton. It
                        is published by The Knights Templars of Aquarius 1957. It was said HC
                        Randall-Stevens is the incarnation of El Eros and a later incarnation
                        of Akhnaton.

                        It is a dedication of Adam Ptah El Daoud and his divine twin Evam, to
                        the master teachers of Earth.

                        A wonderful find (in a second hand-book shop a few years ago) I am
                        sure here we will find parallels to the writings you have on
                        Atlantis. It is said the 'latter' days is the shift of the sun from
                        Pisces into Aquarius.

                        Getting a bit off the subject of dimensions; but maybe not really
                        because possibly the dimensions is discovering these worlds; as the
                        metaphor of the plant - releasing the element of scent.

                        Have a great day.
                        Caryn
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.