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

heretics of reality

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Nov 8, 2006
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 10 , Nov 9, 2006
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 10 , Nov 9, 2006
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 10 , Nov 9, 2006
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 10 , Nov 10, 2006
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 10 , Nov 10, 2006
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 10 , Nov 10, 2006
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 10 , Nov 11, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 10 , Nov 13, 2006
                    View Source
                    • 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.