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

Re: [ufodiscussion] REPTOIDS APPEAR IN LOVECRAFT.

Expand Messages
  • Regan Power
    Don, Although we seem to have only one point of possible divergence/disagreement at present, it seems a fairly deeep and subtle one to me, so I will stick to
    Message 1 of 41 , Dec 1, 2004
      Don,

      Although we seem to have only one point of possible
      divergence/disagreement at present, it seems a fairly deeep and subtle one
      to me, so I will stick to the format of addressing your individual
      statements, so as to avoid overlooking anything that might be important.

      Don: I think it does a grave disservice to the whole nature and concept of
      "Creation" and "Manifest Reality" to so (seemingly) dismiss "others" as mere
      illusory distinctions of the Ultimate Self.

      Regan: I was not dismissing others, Don. I was merely acknowledging that
      all are really One.

      Don: To do so is denying the validity of individual experience and identity.

      Regan: I do not think I was doing that. I was only denying the ultimate
      validity of the idea of separate causality. That seems to be the crucial
      issue here to me, because your proposition was that our souls have been
      doctored by "others", which seems to imply that those "others" were unique
      causes of the soul-changes which were created in us. As far as I can see,
      the ultimate unity of all that exists makes it impossible to pin the
      ultimate causes of anything onto anyone in particular. Investigate the
      causes for any event that you like and I guarantee that you will end up
      implicating the whole universe eventually.

      Don: I agree that at the *ULTIMATE* level of existence there is "ONE SELF",
      "Universal "Nature", or the Hindu "Brahman", as you have referred. However,
      it is in the nature of Brahman to express ItSelf as a *multitude* of
      "Selves". The more seriously and firmly one takes such *seeming*
      separateness, the more one is trapped in the "False ego", I agree.

      Regan: I note that we are in agreement here.

      Don: But again, to deny the validity and "inviolate nature", as Seth would
      say, of *Individual Identity* is doing a great disservice to the "plan" of
      Universal Nature to express ItSelf as a Multitude.

      Regan: I don't think it has ever been part of Nature's "plan" for us to
      ignore, or deny the fact of our underlying unity in "Brahman" (ie. the
      Absolute, the One), which does not conflict in any way with our existence as
      individuals. Therefore, I do not see how acknowledging or asserting our
      underlying unity does any disservice to the "Plan" either. Rather, I think
      it serves to enhance it.

      Don: Manifest Reality is a huge game at play. Such a game involves "Self"
      and "Other"; "Don" and "Regan",.... and "Bill" and "Janet" and "Dex" and
      "Keith" and "Karin" and "Bre" and "Ted" et "al". It also involves us
      "humans" as well as most likely a multitude of "aliens" who are "others".

      Regan: True. But a game is something that is played within the context of
      a wider, more fundamental reality, whose laws of operation are basic to the
      game and automatically take priority over the rules of the game, which can
      be altered according to taste but which are also created by mutual consent
      of the players. If there is no mutual consent, you don't have a game. Such
      is the absolute law which naturally governs the existence of all games,
      whether we are talking about a board-game, like chess or monopoly, or a
      political power-game in society, or the psychological games that underpin
      victor-victim situations, or the Great Game of Life. All interactions in
      the universe take place with the mutual consent of all the parties involved,
      it seems to me.

      Don: Such "others", I believe.. OOPS! I said that word! ;-), had a part
      in altering our spiritual and physical development. Many such "others" are
      more deeply trapped in the "False ego" than are we, despite their seemingly
      "godlike" powers, and are even more convinced of their separateness. At our
      "lower" spiritual awareness, we have believed that we are lesser beings and
      so fell into their trap. At spiritually much deeper or "higher" levels,
      though, we were/are aware that we purposefully and consciously allowed such
      *seeming* manipulation to take place in order to advance our spiritual
      selves in this "risky" manner. I have no "evidence" for this, and I don't
      want to get into another discussion, as I did with Bill and Janet, as to
      what exactly constitutes "evidence" in the first place. I base these ideas
      of my analysis of many things; world mythology, comparative religions,
      alleged UFO/ET encounters and communications, etc. Mostly, though, after
      all of this information, I derive my ideas from my own intuitive or even
      "revelatory" perception.

      Regan: I believe there is nothing wrong with using the term "others" in the
      context of the Great Game of Life, if it is understood that there is an
      absolute unity and common identity underlying all the individual players and
      their games. But if the term is used in such a way as to suggest that their
      "otherness" is absolute, total and real, then I would argue with it, because
      that would be to create another, artificial and burdensome illusion on top
      of the creative illusion of individuality which nature has already given us.

      But I am unclear now, Don, as to what you are really saying here.
      You spoke of "tampering" and "manipulation", which sounded accusatory to me,
      before. Now you speak of certain "others" who only "had a part in altering
      our spiritual and physical development", which would hardly put the aliens
      in the dock in any World Court of Human Rights. Can you clarify your
      position on this, please?


      Don: It is a great achievement in awareness to realize, both intellectually
      as well as emotionally and spiritually, that at the *Ultimate Level* these
      distinctions are illusory. This frees one from the sense of being an
      unwitting "victim" to being a "Consious Creator". This freeing from the
      "False ego" enlightens one to a state of "Higher Ego", wherein one
      recognizes the illusory nature of distinctions but still maintains
      *Identity*. However, the game is still afoot, at least until this "Day of
      Brahman" is over. ;-)

      Regan: Aha, yes! How did the refrain go from Kipling's famous poem (whose
      name I can never remember!)................

      ...............Play up, play up,
      And play the Game!

      Regards,
      Regan
      _____


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: DRxDON
      To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 10:13 PM
      Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] REPTOIDS APPEAR IN LOVECRAFT.


      Regan,

      I agree with all you have to say, and any *apparent* differences are just
      semantics or
      non-thorough wording on my part. However, I still have a divergent
      perspective with the
      following point of view.

      > Regan: However, let me try to put my finger on the possible difference
      > which I think you
      > might be sensing between us. I would agree that our souls have been
      > altered and modified
      > in the course of their development, but the question in my mind is that
      > of, By whom? You
      > say that it has been done by "others", but I do not believe in any
      > ultimate distinction been
      > "self" and "other". To my mind, it is an illusory distinction which
      > appears to be real only
      > from the false standpoint of the separated ego. When the ego reunites
      > with the Self, this
      > distinction disappears and everything which seemed formerly to have been
      > caused wilfully by
      > others is seen to have been caused by the One Self - ie, Universal
      > Nature - alone.

      Don: I think it does a grave disservice to the whole nature and concept of
      "Creation" and
      "Manifest Reality" to so (seemingly) dismiss "others" as mere illusory
      distinctions of the
      Ultimate Self. To do so is denying the validity of individual experience
      and identity. I
      agree that at the *ULTIMATE* level of existence there is "ONE SELF",
      "Universal "Nature",
      or the Hindu "Brahman", as you have referred. However, it is in the nature
      of Brahman to
      express ItSelf as a *multitude* of "Selves". The more seriously and firmly
      one takes such
      *seeming* separateness, the more one is trapped in the "False ego", I agree.
      But again, to
      deny the validity and "inviolate nature", as Seth would say, of *Individual
      Identity* is
      doing a great disservice to the "plan" of Universal Nature to express ItSelf
      as a Multitude.

      Manifest Reality is a huge game at play. Such a game involves "Self" and
      "Other"; "Don" and
      "Regan",.... and "Bill" and "Janet" and "Dex" and "Keith" and "Karin" and
      "Bre" and "Ted" et
      "al". It also involves us "humans" as well as most likely a multitude of
      "aliens" who are
      "others". Such "others", I believe.. OOPS! I said that word! ;-), had a
      part in altering
      our spiritual and physical development. Many such "others" are more deeply
      trapped in the
      "False ego" than are we, despite their seemingly "godlike" powers, and are
      even more convinced
      of their separateness. At our "lower" spiritual awareness, we have believed
      that we are lesser
      beings and so fell into their trap. At spiritually much deeper or "higher"
      levels, though,
      we were/are aware that we purposefully and consciously allowed such
      *seeming* manipulation to
      take place in order to advance our spiritual selves in this "risky" manner.
      I have no "evidence"
      for this, and I don't want to get into another discussion, as I did with
      Bill and Janet, as to
      what exactly constitutes "evidence" in the first place. I base these ideas
      of my analysis of
      many things; world mythology, comparative religions, alleged UFO/ET
      encounters and communications,
      etc. Mostly, though, after all of this information, I derive my ideas from
      my own intuitive or
      even "revelatory" perception.

      It is a great achievement in awareness to realize, both intellectually as
      well as emotionally
      and spiritually, that at the *Ultimate Level* these distinctions are
      illusory. This frees one
      from the sense of being an unwitting "victim" to being a "Consious Creator".
      This freeing from
      the "False ego" enlightens one to a state of "Higher Ego", wherein one
      recognizes the illusory
      nature of distinctions but still maintains *Identity*. However, the game is
      still afoot, at
      least until this "Day of Brahman" is over. ;-)

      Don


      Regan Power wrote:
      >
      > Don,
      >
      > Your last reply is packed with stimulating items as usual, so I
      > will respond (briefly!) to them individually. I shall put my responses in
      > dark blue text and see
      > if it works.
      >
      > Don: Yes, thanks for the correction. ;-) I just got them backwards.
      >
      > Regan: Ha, ha, ha. I thought that was what happened. I'm glad you didn't
      > mind my pointing it out.
      >
      > Don: The Ba is the "nuclear core" of one's being insofar as it holds a
      > person's "personality components", or their Ka, in cohesion. It is not
      > necessarily the core of
      > one's "individual consciousness", though it is basically, as you say, the
      > center of conscious intelligence and awareness.
      >
      > Regan: Yes. I gather, too, that these concepts were somewhat elastic, in
      > that their precise meanings depended upon the number of terms used in
      > different conceptual
      > systems that were employed to describe the whole person. For example, if
      > you go to
      > < http://members.ispwest.com/jlbrooks/soul.html >,
      > you will see a system of nine (!) "bodies" depicted, in which the Ka and
      > Ba appear to have been relegated to subordinate roles in the overall
      > structure. It seems to be
      > the same with most ancient concepts which have been worked with by untold
      > numbers of people over untold thousands of years, such as chakra-systems,
      > for example. The
      > meanings of tems are contextual to an astonishing degree and sometimes the
      > result is that students of one school do not know what the students of
      > another school are
      > talking about, although they are using the same terms and are talking
      > about the same subjects. For this reason, I like to have the context in
      > which the concepts are
      > being discussed clearly defined, so that I can know which Ka, or Ba
      > everyone is talking about.
      >
      > Don: From my understanding of Ancient Egyptian mystery schools, as I
      > learned in the Scwaller De Lubicz books, the development of a totally
      > integrated "personality"
      > structure that survives death is the goal of "Initiation".
      >
      > Regan: Ah, I think we might have a slight difference of views here. I
      > would agree that the goal of the mystery schools was complete personal
      > integration and that this
      > implied survival of death as a natural consequence, but I don't think mere
      > survival was a primary goal of initiation. Rather, I think it was the
      > attainment of what Jesus
      > called "e-ternal life", ie. life outside of time, in eternity. I am sure
      > the Egyptians already believed in the unawakened soul's unending survival,
      > if not in this world,
      > then in the mental-spiritual "womb" of the earth (called the Duat), from
      > which it would reincanate again in time. Initiation was intended to
      > liberate the soul from
      > perpetual reincarnation in time and release it into eternity, where it
      > would enjoy the companionship of the gods.
      >
      > Don: There is not a progressive advancement of identification "away" from
      > one state to another where "lower" levels are abandoned, but rather a
      > gradual awareness and
      > incorporation of all of the "higher" levels. This may be the same as you
      > are saying but just looked at from a different
      > perspective.
      >
      > Regan: I think it is essentially the same, Don, except to say that, I
      > think once the highest levels had been attained, the lower ones might have
      > become superfluous to the
      > individual, who would be free to discard them, if he or she so desired.
      >
      > Don: The "lower" Ka, or ego, accepts the spiritual reality of the "higher"
      > Ka and thereby
      > unites in awareness directly with the Ba. When this state is attained,
      > the Ba unites directly
      > with the Ka and manifests the "djet", or "incorruptible body". This is
      > not necessarily a physical
      > body but a spiritual "vessel" that can manifest a physical body if needed.
      > It is, nevertheless, a
      > perfected integrated structure that is NOT "merely" a blissful
      > reunification with the "Infinite" or
      > "One", though it was able to attain this integrated state by realizing and
      > accepting its ultimate
      > connection to, and union with, the Infinite Ra.
      >
      > Regan: I concur with all of this and observe that most ancient systems of
      > spiritual enlightenment and initiation refer to the development of this
      > "incorruptible"
      > spiritual body. Although it is usually described as a new body, I think
      > of it as the whole body that results from the perfect integration of our
      > existing bodies, which
      > operate separately and independently of one another in the "normal",
      > disintegrated state of unenlightened man. This "new" whole body possesses
      > transcendental powers and
      > abilities and is ever-growing as well, so it is constantly developing new
      > capabilities too.
      >
      > Don: Wherever we may agree or disagree on the above material, I'm quite
      > sure that we disagree on the following.
      >
      > Regan: Uh oh. I knew our happy concordance couldn't last, somehow. ;-)
      >
      > Don: I still feel that this "natural progression of the soul" is
      > "natural" only insofar as it is the state of being in which we find
      > ourselves. It is "unnatural" in
      > that I feel our world as well as our bodies AND souls have been
      > manipulated and engineered by "others". When I say "engineered", I do not
      > mean "created", as in ex
      > nilos. I mean that what was originally "created" has been "fashioned",
      > "molded", and "tampered with".
      >
      > Regan: Actually, Don, I am not at all sure that we do disagree about this.
      > I see you stating that you feel it; I just don't see you stating any
      > reasons why you feel it,
      > or why anyone else should feel it either. I cannot be persuaded by
      > arguments that are not presented to me, my friend.
      >
      > However, let me try to put my finger on the possible difference
      > which I think you might be sensing between us. I would agree that our
      > souls have been altered and
      > modified in the course of their development, but the question in my mind
      > is that of, By whom? You say that it has been done by "others", but I do
      > not believe in any
      > ultimate distinction been "self" and "other". To my mind, it is an
      > illusory distinction which appears to be real only from the false
      > standpoint of the separated ego.
      > When the ego reunites with the Self, this distinction disappears and
      > everything which seemed formerly to have been caused wilfully by others is
      > seen to have been caused
      > by the One Self - ie, Universal Nature - alone.
      >
      > Don: These Mystery School teachings are merely methods to instuct us on
      > how to regain our "natural" state.
      >
      > Regan: True, but I think initiation was more than just verbal, or literal
      > teaching. It was basically practical and experiential, I understand.
      > However, I agree that
      > the goal was to restore people to their natural state, if by "natural" you
      > mean the original state in which they were created.
      >
      > Regards,
      > Regan
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: DRxDON
      > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 6:50 PM
      > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] REPTOIDS APPEAR IN LOVECRAFT.
      >
      > Regan,
      >
      > Yes, thanks for the correction. ;-) I just got them backwards. The Ba
      > is the "nuclear core"
      > of one's being insofar as it holds a person's "personality components",
      > or their Ka, in cohesion.
      > It is not necessarily the core of one's "individual consciousness",
      > though it is basically, as
      > you say, the center of conscious intelligence and awareness. From my
      > understanding of Ancient
      > Egyptian mystery schools, as I learned in the Scwaller De Lubicz books,
      > the development of a
      > totally integrated "personality" structure that survives death is the
      > goal of "Initiation".
      > There is not a progressive advancement of identification "away" from one
      > state to another where
      > "lower" levels are abandoned, but rather a gradual awareness and
      > incorporation of all of the
      > "higher" levels. This may be the same as you are saying but just looked
      > at from a different
      > perspective. The "lower" Ka, or ego, accepts the spiritual reality of
      > the "higher" Ka and thereby
      > unites in awareness directly with the Ba. When this state is attained,
      > the Ba unites directly
      > with the Ka and manifests the "djet", or "incorruptible body". This is
      > not necessarily a physical
      > body but a spiritual "vessel" that can manifest a physical body if
      > needed. It is, nevertheless, a
      > perfected integrated structure that is NOT "merely" a blissful
      > reunification with the "Infinite" or
      > "One", though it was able to attain this integrated state by realizing
      > and accepting its ultimate
      > connection to, and union with, the Infinite Ra.
      >
      > Wherever we may agree or disagree on the above material, I'm quite sure
      > that we disagree on the
      > following. I still feel that this "natural progression of the soul" is
      > "natural" only insofar
      > as it is the state of being in which we find ourselves. It is
      > "unnatural" in that I feel our
      > world as well as our bodies AND souls have been manipulated and
      > engineered by "others". When I
      > say "engineered", I do not mean "created", as in ex nilos. I mean that
      > what was originally
      > "created" has been "fashioned", "molded", and "tampered with". These
      > Mystery School teachings
      > are merely methods to instuct us on how to regain our "natural" state.
      >
      > Don
      >
      > Regan Power wrote:
      > >
      > > Don,
      > >
      > > I think you may have got the Ka and Ba concepts the wrong way
      > around. Surely, the Ka is the "lower" subtle body (or "astral body") and
      > the Ba is the "higher"
      > > spritual body, the individuality, or the soul. As the essence of the
      > individual consciousness, intelligence resides in the Ba, not the Ka. The
      > Ka is a vehicle of
      > the
      > > Ba, which constitutes the nuclear core of one's being. Some scholars
      > say that the path of spiritual development known today as Kabbalah was
      > originally called
      > > "Ka-Ba-Ra", which thus signified the nature of the path - that is, the
      > progressive identification of consciousness first with the Ka (ie. the
      > finite, earthly ego,
      > which
      > > is in fact the astral body that lives inside the physical body), then
      > with the Ba (ie. the spiritual being, which is the true, essential,
      > individual Self) and finally
      > > with Ra (ie. the universal "light" of the Spirit, which is the
      > Universal Self, or "God"). This scheme also corresponds with the three
      > initiations described by Paul
      > > Brunton as having been given in the Ancient Egyptian mystery schools.
      > These were, firstly, initiation into astral awareness (Ka), with the
      > automatic accompanying
      > > realization of one's survival of physical death; secondly, initiation
      > into spiritual self-awareness (Ba) and thirdly, initiation into universal
      > awareness, or Cosmic
      > > Consciousness (Ra).
      > >
      > > Regards,
      > > Regan
      > > _____
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: DRxDON
      > > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 1:17 AM
      > > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] REPTOIDS APPEAR IN LOVECRAFT.
      > >
      > > Metaphorically, this sounds alot like like my presentation of Jane
      > > Roberts/Seth's idea of the "personality" diffusing into two parts
      > > at death. One "part" is the much more psychically "distant"
      > > Higher Self or "Entity" and the other is a loosely configured
      > > nebulous construct of desires, conflicts, etc., that more or
      > > less "disperses". This is also in like with the Egyptian concept
      > > of the BA and the KA. The KA is the aware mental intelligence
      > > which survives in a cohesive form and the BA is the "remnants"
      > > of the earthly personality. As the text says below, I don't feel
      > > that this is a "natural" phenomeneon,...yet it is the world as
      > > we know it, and HAVEKNOW it since its inception.
      > >
      > > Don
      > >
      > > Bre wrote:
      > > >
      > > > For Info.
      > > >
      > > > PC Reptoid wrote:
      > >
      > > > >Sumerian text:
      > > > >"Man is born of sadness, for he is of the Blood of the Ancient
      > > > >Ones, but has the Spirit of the Elder gods (Annunaki) breathed
      > > > >into him. And his heart goes to the Ancient Ones, but his mind
      > > > >is turned towards the Elder gods (Annunaki), and this is the
      > > > >war which shall be always fought, unto the last generation of
      > > > >man; for the world is unnatural.
      > >
      > > --
      > > What If --------------------------?
      > > DRxDON
    • DRxDON
      No need to get sarcastic, Janet. I was just making the point that there are as many, if not more, accounts of negative behavior toward humans during events
      Message 41 of 41 , Dec 5, 2004
        No need to get sarcastic, Janet. I was just making the point that there
        are as many, if not more, accounts of "negative" behavior toward humans
        during events which the experiencers describe as "abuctions" than their
        are accounts of "positive" behavior. This is NOT so in experiences openly
        described as "contacts". NO, I haven't read ALL accounts, but I think that
        I've read as many as most researchers. I would say that you are fortunate
        that you have never had a negative experience, and I suppose that would
        tend to make you more open to the "bright side" of things.

        I'm just trying to get to the point where we firmly disagree and define it.
        I think that point is that you feel no *entire* race of ETs could be defined
        as "bad" or have "negative intentions" toward humanity on the whole whereas
        I do. You feel that any incidents of negative ET behavior are just examples
        of *individual* "personality quirks" of the particular ET in question. I say
        that this may be so in some cases but I also feel that if we are dealing with
        a collective "hive" mind, as I believe is the case in many encounters, then
        the concept of an entire race of ETs having hostile intentions toward the
        human race is valid.

        I may be wrong here(correct me if I am) but I believe that you also feel, like
        Laneesa and I *think* as Karin too, that all fearful and highly negative and
        traumatic experiences are merely the result of the experiencer's "fear-based"
        mentality and refusal to "open up". Although I can accept that *some* first
        contacts which are initiated without "prior notice" can be unsettling and
        "freaky", on the whole, I disagree with the above generalization about highly
        traumatic events. I myself had a waking "apparitional contact" with a powerful
        entity that could be called "fearsome". It freaked me out and I was afraid but
        I sensed no actual "malevolence" from the being, only a "challenge". It was
        very impersonal to my "ego-self" but I had the feeling that it was transferring
        vast amounts of multidimensional information to a "higher level" of my psyche
        which my conscious mind couldn't comprehend. This event signaled a very
        powerful turning point in my life and I credit it with a great deal of my
        "Initiation".

        As far as creating reality from the energy of our thoughts, I firmly believe
        this too. However, there are many "hidden" thoughts and "false beliefs"
        involved within all of us. I feel that it is from this "hidden" part of
        ourselves that most of our "reality" emerges. Our conscious minds reflect
        this reality and validate it. "Know thySELF!"

        I hope that we understand each other better now and know where to agree to
        disagree. :-)

        Don


        Jahnets wrote:
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: DRxDON [mailto:drxdon@...]
        > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 11:42 AM
        > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] REPTOIDS APPEAR IN LOVECRAFT.
        >
        > Janet,
        >
        > I considered ALL of the points you made,....YEARS ago. It was only AFTER
        > reading
        > ALL reports of encounters and looking at them in "depth and in their
        > "subtleties"
        > that I concluded that "something just wasn't right" in *SOME* of the
        > reported cases.
        > It wasn't *just* disoriented fear reported by the *particular* abductees of
        > which
        > I speak, which as you say, could very well be expected, understanding the
        > situation
        > and general human psychology. It was outright snide condescension and even
        > *hostility*.
        >
        > J: I hadn't realized that you had read every reported case there is...Is
        > that suppose to give your thoughts preferance over mine??? Possibly they
        > were arrogant??? You're being vague Don... Just what something wasn't
        > right??? OH, I get it...Another race has been snide with a human while they
        > were abducted. That is what's bothering you right? Hasn't a human ever been
        > snide with you or others you knew??? Ever been pulled over for a ticket and
        > made the mistake of questioning the officer???
        >
        > Why can't you accept the *posibility* that *some* ETs, and even entire
        > "collective"
        > ET races, are not "nice" and don't have our best interests in mind, at least
        > as far
        > as our *individual* identities are concerned as a race? IMO, it is more
        > logical to
        > assume that *some* ETs are what we would call of a "negative" frame of being
        > and that
        > *some* are from a "positive" frame of being than to say that ALL ETs are
        > here for our
        > greater good.
        >
        > J: There you go again twisting my words Don, I stated that I'm sure some are
        > jerks too just like HUMANS, however I consider stating that a whole race as
        > not nice solely because they are from that race as being prejudice... I have
        > yet to meet an evil one, where I have met evil humans... That doesn't mean
        > there aren't a few out there, just I haven't met them.
        >
        > I used to believe that any beings that have such vast knowledge and powers
        > MUST be
        > highly spiritually advanced too and therefore be "good" regardless of what
        > we think
        > and see from our perspective. Then, the more I learned of occult powers and
        > the more
        > intuitive I became, I realized that beings can be VERY powerful with
        > "etheric"
        > technology but even *less* "spiritually" advanced than us. There is a long
        > history
        > of "evil" sorcerers with vast "spiritual" powers which they use for very
        > "negative"
        > purposes. In the Hindu Bhagavagita, there is told the great battles of the
        > "gods"
        > between those of Light and the "Asuras", those of Darkness. Both had
        > "Vimanas" (UFOs),
        > which had the ability to fly through space and time and to other planets and
        > posessed
        > fantastic weaponry which sound like nuclear or plasma based explosives and
        > beams of
        > today.
        >
        > J: I have heard of humans who have reached enlightenment and then later
        > became twisted allowing the power to get out of hand and thinking of
        > themselves as better due to it. Since we have genes of the gods, and humans
        > seem to have this problem some times then it isn't too far of a jump to see
        > where it came from... No one is perfect Don, only All That Is. The best we
        > can hope for I think is to be perfect for what we are and what we set out to
        > do here... If we can do better than that then we're doing pretty good...
        >
        > As to the "agremeent" thing, I said that I feel that we, as a race of souls,
        > DID agree
        > to be subjected to ALL sorts of "manipulation" by "gods" before we even
        > incarnated here.
        > However, this doesn't mean that we don't still have a CHOICE to decide which
        > particular
        > "gods" with which we want to be involved, nor does it mean that we can, AT
        > ANY TIME,
        > decide to WAKEUP from this "illusion" and not be involved with ANY "gods"
        > whatsoever
        > anymore.
        >
        > Don
        >
        > J: Did I say we didn't have a choice which gods, aliens,etc. we deal
        > with???I had a teacher who was enlightened and he dealt with them, so I have
        > to say good luck Don...
        > I understand where you are coming from Don, I just don't agree with all of
        > it, and that's ok... The whole point to our discussion of these issues isn't
        > so we agree with each other, but rather put various different ideas out
        > there for others to think about and discuss. See by everyone reading this
        > and disagreeing or agreeing they are putting the energy into the thoughts.
        > Where you put your energy is what you create...ha ha
        >
        > Jahnets wrote:
        > >
        > > Don,
        > >
        > > Where it may or may not be true, fact is, it is how "they
        > interpreted" the
        > > aliens. Right??? Have you never misinterpreted humans intentions? So I
        > think
        > > you'll understand if I question some of those. I believe anyone and
        > everyone
        > > going up on those ships gets examined. Does that not make sense to you? Do
        > > you think our astronauts would do differently bringing an alien on board
        > > their ship if they happened to run into them??? To me this is perfectly
        > > logical. Not evil, not mean, not intended to hurt anyone's feelings. You
        > say
        > > I haven't experienced any type of behavior like this but that isn't true
        > > really, I have just learned from it rather than automatically seeing it in
        > > the light of hurtfulness. When I met Osiris and his court I was standing
        > on
        > > the red carpet in very old pajamas that I would never have worn in
        > public...
        > > When I looked down and realized what I had on in front of all these beings
        > I
        > > was at first embarrassed, then mad and literally glared around the room
        > > searching for who ever had thought to land me in the middle of this group
        > > without clothing me properly, then I thought ok fine you want a look and
        > > stood up and ignored it the rest of the time. I grew... I am not my body,
        > I
        > > am what animates this body. Now was that a disservice to me??? I would say
        > > it was more of a test looking back on it... Like "she knows it does she
        > > believe it?", you know... I guess the point I'm trying to make here is
        > they
        > > aren't humans and most expect them to understand our feelings in regards
        > to
        > > behavior just because their telepathic...Wrong...Also the shock of the
        > > experience tends to make one over-emotional to begin with, it's only after
        > > you sit and think on it awhile that some of the subtleties come out. Then
        > > this has been happening to me since I was 5 so I'm used to it. I'm not
        > > saying that some of them can't be jerks without even trying just like
        > > humans, but to say it's intentional harm? As for this "you agreed to it",
        > I
        > > have noticed something that might enlighten this for everyone... While I
        > > have been talking to some of my contacts, they will ask me something and
        > > I'll say sure, and they look at each other, and their body language says,
        > > "OK, she just agreed"... Which when I noticed it I had to pause and think
        > ok
        > > am I agreeing to more than what I thought I was agreeing to??? So you see
        > I
        > > can see this happening quite easily due to translation... When I note that
        > I
        > > try to qualify what ever we are talking about to avert this, but still we
        > > have had a few misunderstandings... That doesn't mean they are horrible
        > > monsters, with evil intentions like some say... Have you ever thought that
        > > maybe because they have hierarchical governing that since our government
        > has
        > > ok'd this, that that means we have ok'd it to??? I mean just a thought but
        > > that leaves a lot to misunderstanding...Another thing whether people
        > realize
        > > this or not their thoughts bring things to them. If people think about
        > them
        > > in a day dreamy sort of way they are going to pick it up faster than a
        > human
        > > would and comply...ha ha They're telepathic. So if one thinks about them a
        > > lot, does this mean that person wants to meet up with them??? See there
        > are
        > > a lot of ways we may be agreeing to things that we don't realize we
        > are...
        > > and that is besides for moving into the Aquarian age and the enlightenment
        > > that is occurring generally with all people now... Let's try to be fair
        > even
        > > in the face of over emotionalism...
        > >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: DRxDON [mailto:drxdon@...]
        > > Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 8:10 PM
        > > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] REPTOIDS APPEAR IN LOVECRAFT.
        > >
        > > Janet,
        > >
        > > I am only going by *some* of the accounts of *abductees*, not
        > *contactees*,
        > > who say that they were treated with disrespect by their abductors. When
        > > they
        > > told the abductors that they had no right to abduct them they were told
        > "we
        > > have every right", "we made you", "you are US", etc, in very a very
        > > condescending
        > > manner. Whitley Strieber is the most notable amongst this group but there
        > > are
        > > others. I recognize that there are contactees and even abductees who do
        > not
        > > get treated this way and are merely taken aboard, given some kind of
        > > examination
        > > which is usually kind of "fuzzy" in their memory and then given a tour of
        > > the
        > > ship and perhaps some kind of "message". The fact that you haven't
        > > experienced
        > > this, nor anyone else that you know, does not mean that this has not
        > > happened
        > > to others. I am just saying, to put it in VERY simplistic earth
        > > frame-of-reference
        > > terminology, that there probably are "nicer" ETs and ETs who are not so
        > > "nice".
        > >
        > > Don
        > >
        > > Jahnets wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Don, I am both an abductee and a contactee ongoing... I have never met
        > one
        > > > alien that even subtlely stated that we were under their sovereign right
        > > to
        > > > control. About the only way I can even see this is in the sense that
        > > > resposibilty merits you take care of and deal with what you create...



        --
        What If --------------------------?
        DRxDON
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.