It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

VAULT B

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

'day Itisnowagain,

I know who built the temples, I also understand the precursors of the temple building were another civilisation. That the enslavement includes also the Asura and others in the system. The European way is to enslave Nature Beings and humans. Arabian ancestors enslaved Elemental Spirits turning them into djinns. The list goes on. The pre-vedic was worse.

Wow, ol' Krishnamurti J. Been quite a few years since I read his books. His biography was wonderful. Especially how the theosophical society decided he was the "one" they were looking for and made him all-powerful head honcho of the Order of the Star. Krishnamurti then goes and disbands the Order there and then. THAT was cool.

K's books were a little above me in many things, and for myself, I'm aware of the creation of duality in thinking and creating words and labels, how the mind divides and creates conflict. That's why I said "mind is an instrument of disection".

That is one reason I like the Nagi and wood-nymphs so much. No thinking involved, just feelings and knowing without knowing how one knows. There is also the honesty in that sort of communication that is absent in humans such as the masters and others suchlike.

As much as I like Krishnamurti J, I think the sense of "me" is neccessary in the "lower" worlds. We need boundaries to have that sense of "me" and "you". Otherwise, I feel anyway, that diversity will be lost if there is no boundaries or sense of self.

Maybe I simply don't get Krishnamurti, but my instinct is that I don't want to go to any sort of boundaryless oneness. My instincts say that working towards diversity is Nature's way and going towards oneness is just for humans. Personally I chose to opt out of going upwards. Humanity can keep it's evolving.

But the thinker and the thought, the mental plane et al, is not the sole reason for conflict. The spiritual world is not without responsibility in the causation of suffering. The arrival of the Devas to this world caused much conflict, as did the arrival of humanity.

But to avoid thread drift.

Itsnowagain, in bringing up Krishnamurti J, do you have an insight into chanting and thought we're missing?

edit on 6-12-2017 by Whatsthisthen because: typo




posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
But the thinker and the thought, the mental plane et al, is not the sole reason for conflict. The spiritual world is not without responsibility in the causation of suffering.

Is there someone thinking?
If it is found that there is 'no one' thinking - then where is the 'sufferer'?

Thought assumes a 'thinker' - a thing that thinks. Thought ties one up in knots.


edit on 6-12-2017 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain




Is there someone thinking?
If it is found that there is 'no one' thinking - then where is the 'sufferer'?


I'll be brutal here, ask that of a family who just lost a child. The ache they feel is real, the loss.

The absence of thought does not neccessarily mean suffering is absent too.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen

As much as I like Krishnamurti J, I think the sense of "me" is neccessary in the "lower" worlds. We need boundaries to have that sense of "me" and "you". Otherwise, I feel anyway, that diversity will be lost if there is no boundaries or sense of self.

Maybe I simply don't get Krishnamurti, but my instinct is that I don't want to go to any sort of boundaryless oneness. My instincts say that working towards diversity is Nature's way and going towards oneness is just for humans. Personally I chose to opt out of going upwards. Humanity can keep it's evolving.

Nature is not 'working toward' diversity - what appears is always different, always.
The sense of 'me' is an illusion - it is not needed - it is conflict - it goes against nature - it is not coherent.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

An afterthought.

(grin) your not justifying the acts of an amoral spiritual world that results in acts of suffering here are you?

For instance the brutal rape and murder of an innocent girl in order to change societal views and change the course of the Society's developement.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: Itisnowagain




Is there someone thinking?
If it is found that there is 'no one' thinking - then where is the 'sufferer'?


I'll be brutal here, ask that of a family who just lost a child. The ache they feel is real, the loss.

The absence of thought does not neccessarily mean suffering is absent too.


The self: a trick your mind plays on not you.

...There's some stupid bastard doing a U-turn in the middle of the road right in front of my bike. I am angry and want to shout "You idiot -- what do you think you're doing? You nearly knocked me off!" Can the sight of that idiotic man be me?

Yes. Of course.

If I stop, calm down, and search for the me who is looking at him I will find only him, and his car, and the road. If I search for the me who is angry with him I will find only the anger bubbling up. It's the same with everything I experience; there is not a separate me as well as the experience.

It is hard to accept that I am all those people walking down the street; that I am, at least in this fleeting moment, that Muslim woman with her stupid veil, that annoying child with the ice cream, that crowd of giggling school girls.

Yet somehow or other this way of looking makes it easier to be kind.
hinessight.blogs.com...




posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Ya know, I do get "K" and the way they "think" upstairs. I just don't want anything to do with conforming to their way if "thinking" for want of a better term, "meditations"??

It doesn't matter anyway.

Coincidentally, the appearance of the little fellas this morning and other vedic gods (projections or whatever) as the day wore on, along with Krishnamurti is not lost on me.

I don't think this is to do with the temple door per se.

My next comment is for the spiritual world and not you Itsnowagain, so I hope you don't take offense.

The answer is still "get lost".


edit on 6-12-2017 by Whatsthisthen because: typo



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
My next comment is for the spiritual world and not you Itsnowagain, so I hope you don't take offense.

The answer is still "get lost".


What is 'the spiritual world'?

There isn't anything other than what there is - there is no up there or down there.
But if there is a belief that there is a 'you' separate to 'what is' then that would be conflict not peace.



edit on 6-12-2017 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Ya know, I do get "K" and the way they "think" upstairs.
The way 'who' thinks upstairs??

I just don't want anything to do with conforming to their way if "thinking" for want of a better term, "meditations"??

'You' are not thinking!! That is two - you and thought. There is no 'thinker'. There are no things that think. Thinking is thinging.

There isn't some thing 'doing' some thing (twoness). What is, is 'being' what is (oneness).



edit on 6-12-2017 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

The "up", "down", "upstairs" and so on are neccessarily so people have concepts to connect with for understanding, so I use them when communicating with words.

If I were to refer to that which is unspeakable (that which cannot be spoken of), what is the point of speaking at all?

Question: Oneness with what exactly?



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
Question: Oneness with what exactly?

The assumption is that there is two - oneness 'with' something else.
Oneness is all - it IS - there isn't anything other.

What is, is 'being' what is (oneness).


Adviata means not two (non duality).
edit on 6-12-2017 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: Itisnowagain

The "up", "down", "upstairs" and so on are neccessarily so people have concepts to connect with for understanding, so I use them when communicating with words.

If I were to refer to that which is unspeakable (that which cannot be spoken of), what is the point of speaking at all?


But there is no up, down, upstairs - there is just what there is. What there is, what is actual, is unspeakable. Speaking makes believe that there is separation - words make believe things.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

I am well aware there is no up, down or sideways and all that, I also know there are no daemons, yet I count "daemons" amongst my friends.

Your words and what you are saying is not lost on me. I know this already.

I choose not to get caught up in "oneness" because it is human centric.

If I ask the Asura, the Nature Beings and others they do not disagree.

I won't budge by the way, I prefer the company of Asura to Devas and gods.

Leave it be Itsnowagain.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Well... i sent an email to the person involved in the research paper on "Fundamental Study on Design System of Kolam Pattern". I am asking for help in deciphering the dot grid pattern of the two kolams in the pics below.
We shall see if I get a response. The paper is dated back to 2007... so ?




www.scipress.org...

I suppose this all depends on whether or not the pics are actually tied to the Vault... and real or not as was implied earlier in the thread.

leolady



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: leolady

The knowledge gained from the work of figuring out the symbolism would help with understanding other things of a Vedic nature and other sacred places.

In that light, does it reallt matter if the photos are of these particular temple doors?

The old black and white photo has a spell to keep the Nagi "complacent".



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

No it doesn't really matter...if those pics are legit.

As you've suggested I have learned a-lot already in looking into this temple so that is great and its been worthwhile so far.

leolady



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
So let's destroy the old weapon by destroying an aspect of it. Just for safety, some toys shouldn't be allowed.

There is also an oddly Chinese looking stone statue if one goes back two temples. We'll release the spirit within.

There is also a Nagi (supposedly males exist called Naga, personally I don't believe it.) encased in time. We'll let her loose.

There are also sacred texts. They will change history. The physical texts are over-written with Akasha of the second "level" out of reach of the selfish, frightened priests and saints of the "lower heaven" - Itsnowagain's thinking dead preist world who are not "one" with that particular "oneness".

I doubt the Nagi will bother you Leolady, they are nice, but if they offer you immortality, choose wisely because their idea of immortality is not what it seems and may not be what mortal man may think "good".

When the Nagi bestow immortality upon one, they will bite one, one will mortally die, and one will live forever in their world never incarnating again.

The Nagi are one of the true treasures of the temple system.


edit on 6-12-2017 by Whatsthisthen because: typo



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: yuppa

You might be right there yuppa. Today there are lots of little blue fellas with many arms sitting on my front verandah railings.

Maybe a coincidence.


observing you closer prolly. and ive felt like im being watched by others today too. just feel qeasy for no reason.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Yeah they stickybeak, but also there for reasons.

Your watcher(s) are from the "Second Civilisation". That which came after the First Civilisation. The First Civilisation being without a trace of humanity. There lays the difference. ALICCE being Second Civilisation technology.

You must be figuring out something there yuppa, watchers don't potentially expose themselves ordinarily with presence.

The All Seeing Eye. A technology created by the third pillar of humanity of the Second Civilisation.

The time "police" ; )

Not neccessarily a bad thing in itself . . . .


edit on 6-12-2017 by Whatsthisthen because: spilling mastack



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Whatsthisthen




I doubt the Nagi will bother you Leolady, they are nice, but if they offer you immortality, choose wisely because their idea of immortality is not what it seems and may not be what mortal man may think "good". When the Nagi bestow immortality upon one, they will bite one, one will mortally die, and one will live forever in their world never incarnating again.




You might be right there yuppa. Today there are lots of little blue fellas with many arms sitting on my front verandah railings.


Um... I'm not exactly sure of what this is ? The Nagi... how would I know if one were bothering me ? Or the little blue fellas ?

leolady



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join