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.

 

Anunnaki

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   
occultists are not a very good source
Blavatsky for instance was accused of fraud several times
it would be quite easy for me to make links where there arent any that people reading later would think were correct because I had a special source for my information
Blavatskys source were allegedly some ascended masters who channeled the information to her
she immediately then went out and started making money from her claims and gathered quite a following

lets say for instance that while I was sleeping last night that I dreamed that God visited me with choirs of angels and told me that I must found my own religion to lead people away from the evil path they are currently on and that the symbol of this new religion should be the winged disc but with my initials on it
and then of course I copyrighted this idea

this is exactly what Blavatsky did with her work
on her death the theosophy society who she founded bought out a compilation of all her written works also trying to cash in
then later Edgar Cayce based many of his readings on her work in his attempt to cash in

in the meantime none of these people seem aware that the location that Blavatsky gave as a hidden paradise in Tibet where her ascended masters lived has turned out to be an empty desolate valley

So
always consider the source
if the information wasn't arrived at through scholarly work and proper research then it isn't information at all
its imagination

The Anuna were the Cthonic deities of Ancient Mesopotamia
there weren't many of them and one real clue as to their identity is that they were the Gods who controlled the elemental things
such as Iskur the storm god
or Inanna the goddess of love and war
or the chief deity "An" (not Anu as sitchin says) the god of the sky

the characters that Sitchin claims are Annunaki are in fact IGIGI
IGIGI translates directly into english as watchers. Grigori is the latin term for watchers, so its not like anyone was hiding anything. its just the same word in different languages. The IGIGI being the oldest mythological wise are the ones who are original and who the other two examples are based on. When monotheism grew out of polytheism the hebrews didn't want to get rid of all the lesser gods because well, you don't upser a god do you, so they kept them semi divine and still serving the main God. Hebrew scriptures do not in fact include any accounts of angels at all until after the entire race is enslaved in Babylon in the 6 th century bce.According to Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish of Tiberias (230–270 AD), all the specific names for the angels were brought back by the Jews from Babylon.

Babylon which is the third civilisation in mesopotamia after the sumerians vanished from history. they kept the same gods and the same names for the gods. the Babylonians worshipped the IGIGI too
they are the human shaped ones who most of the sumerian texts talk about
and like Byrd said
there is not one genuine Sumerian text that mentions spaceships, lasers, aliens or advanced technology of any kind
the Sumerians didn't even have a word for outer space let alone one for Extra Terrestrials



[edit on 8-2-2007 by Marduk]

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Marduk]




posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I used to be really interested in Sitchins theories and 'translations', logically they make sense to replace the "god being" with some tangible in this reality and form, something that humans could interpret and literally co-exist with.

But the more and more i've read, I'm no longer into Sitchins stuff. I never was a believer of it, just thought it may have been likely, and i think he may have gotten a couple of things right amidst a plethora of incorrect things.

For exampe, he might be right about how our moon came to be, and he might be right somewhat about the asteroid belt, just not exactly because you have to replace the alien planet that decides to come thru our solar system with some other large, heavenly body. Or maybe his thing about planets colliding happened to a different planet that no longer exists where the astrtoid belt is, and the Earth has little to nothing to do with it, unlike what Sitchin says.

[edit on 2/8/2007 by runetang]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I don't believe in all of Sitchin's theories either. Here's the part I don't believe is how Christians and other "new" religions with toss out old religions because of their own bias behavior.

Example: A virgin birth, walks on water, heals the terminally sick, raises the dead, dies and resurrects himself and saves the world.

How egotistical our entire race is: We believe we are the only intelligent life out there and there was nothing before us and there will be nothing after us. Get over ourselves.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   


Example: A virgin birth, walks on water, heals the terminally sick, raises the dead, dies and resurrects himself and saves the world.

they don't toss it out
they claim it for themselves

was being found in a basket on the river the birth story of Moses from 1500BCE or the real story of Sargon the great in 2500BCE

is the tomb of Jesus being empty significant
how about the tomb of Khufu

are the father and the son YHWH and Jesus
or are they Anu and Enlil
or are they Ea and Bel Marduk

was the hero who had power over lions Daniel
or was he Hercules
or was he Gilgamesh

there are no new stories
theres just the same one told over and over
its just that the names have been changed to protect the innocent
and those innocent are YOU



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Intesting you are so quick to condemn someone of whom you have no knowledge. I thought this site is more or less a discussion of topics, not judgements based upon questions asked. And whom are you to judge?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaAnuOmega
Intesting you are so quick to condemn someone of whom you have no knowledge. I thought this site is more or less a discussion of topics, not judgements based upon questions asked. And whom are you to judge?


Gee AlphaAnuOmega,

If you don't want people to respond to, or comment on, a post you make, then I suggest you consider not making the post in the first place.

Harte



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Greetings Marduk





Originally posted by Marduk
occultists are not a very good source
Blavatsky for instance was accused of fraud several times
it would be quite easy for me to make links where there arent any that people reading later would think were correct because I had a special source for my information




Actually, H.P. Blavatsky was an authentic Initiate of the Gelug Sect of Tibetan Buddhism, an Initiate of Cagliostro's Egyptian Rite of FreeMasonry, and a one-time member of the H.ermetic B.rotherhood of L.


You can see the proof in the following post:

FreeMasonry Question

And here: www.blavatsky.net...


The first edition of her "The Voice of the Silence" was printed under the auspices of the Tashi or Panchen Lama, and is highly praised by the current Dalai Lama.

Her writings on the Books of Kiu-Te are of the first (public)Western writings containing Stanzas from Ancient Tantras(transliterated from rGyud-sde).





Blavatskys source were allegedly some ascended masters who channeled the information to her
she immediately then went out and started making money from her claims and gathered quite a following




Nope.

Initiates of the White Lodge don't "channel" information.

Only authentic Oracles, such as the Nechung Oracle or Oracle of Delphi are designated as "mediums" of sorts of the White Lodge.

Oracles are very rare, and no book written by a member of the White Lodge will be a product of mediumism or channelling, because Oracles don't write books(at least not for the public).

And H.P. Blavatsky was not an Oracle, and never claimed to be.

She was into Spiritualism when she first got into Occultism, but it was H.S. Olcott(who would be her future husband) I believe, who pointed out to her that it is Black Magic.

After that, H.P.B. vehemently opposed mediumism/spiritualism in her Theosophical writings.

Also, many spiritualists and "New Age" mediums plagiarized H.P.B.'s works to make money off of(many of them being Nazis).



See this post:

Paganism and Masonry





lets say for instance that while I was sleeping last night that I dreamed that God visited me with choirs of angels and told me that I must found my own religion to lead people away from the evil path they are currently on and that the symbol of this new religion should be the winged disc but with my initials on it
and then of course I copyrighted this idea




What does any of this have to do with H.P. Blavatsky?





this is exactly what Blavatsky did with her work
on her death the theosophy society who she founded bought out a compilation of all her written works also trying to cash in
then later Edgar Cayce based many of his readings on her work in his attempt to cash in




Well I doubt that Edgar Cayce was an Adept, but that's beside the point.

H.P. Blavatsky never made very much money(not from her books anyway), so I don't know where you're getting all this from.





in the meantime none of these people seem aware that the location that Blavatsky gave as a hidden paradise in Tibet where her ascended masters lived has turned out to be an empty desolate valley




That is because Shamballa is not in Tibet(nor did H.P.B. claim so).

It is said to be near the Gobi Desert, and is not accessible to the vulgar.

See Manly P. Hall's Collected Writings Volume I, the Kalachakra writings, and the works of Samael Aun Weor.




So
always consider the source
if the information wasn't arrived at through scholarly work and proper research then it isn't information at all
its imagination




Obviously you haven't even read them.

She admits that much of her research was based on teachings from many of the following:

List of Occultists


One silly website out there even says that she never gave Godfrey Higgins any credit, which is false, because I've seen where she has done it with my own eyes.

People only thought that she plagiarized, because she didn't cite the source every single time.

So what?

The Secret Doctrine belongs to no particular person.

If she directly experienced something that an earlier Occultist wrote, then why should she cite them if it is based on her direct experience?





The Anuna were the Cthonic deities of Ancient Mesopotamia
there weren't many of them and one real clue as to their identity is that they were the Gods who controlled the elemental things
such as Iskur the storm god
or Inanna the goddess of love and war
or the chief deity "An" (not Anu as sitchin says) the god of the sky




Thank you for this info.





the characters that Sitchin claims are Annunaki are in fact IGIGI
IGIGI translates directly into english as watchers. Grigori is the latin term for watchers, so its not like anyone was hiding anything. its just the same word in different languages. The IGIGI being the oldest mythological wise are the ones who are original and who the other two examples are based on. When monotheism grew out of polytheism the hebrews didn't want to get rid of all the lesser gods because well, you don't upser a god do you, so they kept them semi divine and still serving the main God. Hebrew scriptures do not in fact include any accounts of angels at all until after the entire race is enslaved in Babylon in the 6 th century bce.According to Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish of Tiberias (230–270 AD), all the specific names for the angels were brought back by the Jews from Babylon.




What I was saying earlier, is that Angels are deities under different names.

Cross-check their Kabbalistic attributes with each other.

All Pantheons are based on the Tree of Life.

For example, Occult history says that the Canaanite/Phoenician Priest Sanchionatho/Sanchoniathon taught the Greeks and Hebrews.

The Hebrew Pantheon being based more on the Canaanite Kabbalah, and the Greek being based more on the Khemetian Tree of Life which the Cannanite Kabbalah is derived from.

Of course there's much more to it than this, but that's the gist of it.





Babylon which is the third civilisation in mesopotamia after the sumerians vanished from history. they kept the same gods and the same names for the gods. the Babylonians worshipped the IGIGI too
they are the human shaped ones who most of the sumerian texts talk about




This makes sense.





and like Byrd said
there is not one genuine Sumerian text that mentions spaceships, lasers, aliens or advanced technology of any kind
the Sumerians didn't even have a word for outer space let alone one for Extra Terrestrials






Even if they did have this technology, I'm sure they wouldn't have written so literally.







Regards




[edit on 8-2-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



Example: A virgin birth, walks on water, heals the terminally sick, raises the dead, dies and resurrects himself and saves the world.

they don't toss it out
they claim it for themselves

was being found in a basket on the river the birth story of Moses from 1500BCE or the real story of Sargon the great in 2500BCE

is the tomb of Jesus being empty significant
how about the tomb of Khufu

are the father and the son YHWH and Jesus
or are they Anu and Enlil
or are they Ea and Bel Marduk

was the hero who had power over lions Daniel
or was he Hercules
or was he Gilgamesh

there are no new stories
theres just the same one told over and over
its just that the names have been changed to protect the innocent
and those innocent are YOU






Oh but wait, I thought it goes like this:

"Satan" predicted that the one and only real Saviour would show up around what we call 30 B.C., and so he set up nearly-identical stories thousands of years in advance so that people would see them, and then deny the "One and Only True Religion" as to burn in Hell for all Eternity.





Not to say, of course, that the Great Paramarthasatya Yehoshua Hamashiach is not a True Saviour(because He IS).

But "Christian" fanatics are absolutely out of their minds, when they say things such as "Satan predicted, and copied in advance the story of Jesus".


These various Mythologies from around the world, are are all the same, because they all allegorically explain the timeless Secret Doctrine of the Christic Drama that we have to perform within ourselves, in order to achieve the Cessation of suffering.

The ignorant left-brain-hemisphere-minded cynical skeptics only see "primitive fairy-tales" in them, and assume that the Prophets of All Ages were not authentic Occult Scientists.



See: The Universal Saviour






Regards




[edit on 8-2-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
all this is a very nice story Tamahu
and requires a certain amount of faith and religious belief to fly
buit theres one problem
when Blavatsky was claiming to have been getting all this stuff from a divine source
she never once mentioned Sumer

this is a little odd don't you think
as all of these stories can be traced to there
she traces a lot of them to phoenecians and goes as far back as egypt
but because she didn't actually know anything about ancient meopotamia herself she didn't include any of it
if she was for real she would have
so it can only be presumed that she was a faker
not a fakir




posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Before we continue, let me ask you something.

Do you know of any Living Masters who teach the Secret Doctrine in the Sumerian form, meaning one who teaches the Kabbalah of the Sumerian Pantheon?

I've only seen intellectual-scholars teach about the Sumerians.

But are there any who can show some sort of Spiritual Attainment?


Just because one doesn't teach Sumerian Kabbalah, doesn't mean they aren't an authentic Adept.

Any Adept or Master should be able to meditate on the Symbolism and Mythology of the Sumerian deities, and be able to assign them to their proper place on the Tree of Life.

Why they haven't done so publically?

I don't know.


But if you can point us to a Living Sumerian Priest(ess), I'd be more than happy to hear about Her or Him.






Regards



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   


I don't know.

you don't think perhaps then it is because they use only what is known to them in the material world and that is the reason that Blavatsky didn't mention the sumerians
because she hadn't read about them in a book



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   
So when did archaeologists first recognize that Sumer and Akkad are older than what are called Assyria, Chaldea and Babylon?



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tamahu
So when did archaeologists first recognize that Sumer and Akkad are older than what are called Assyria, Chaldea and Babylon?


Assyria is a different civilisation completely as its power base was centred on Armenia
Sumer was inbetween the Tigris and the Euphrates on the shore of the persian gulf
Akkad was a very short lived civilisation further north from Sumer which eventually over time became Babylonia with the advent of Hammurabi
Chaldea is a region of Babylonia as it is represnted by reigning kings of all of Babylonia who came out of the Chaldean region to seize power
the name Chaldea is a hellenistic designation
its only been popularised really by the advent of Biblical scholars hopelessly trying to prove the validity of the existence of Abraham as stated in the Bible coming from Ur of the Chaldees
which for the time of his brith was impossible because Ur wasn't ruled by chaldean kings for 800 years after his birth

so really your question focuses on the distinction made by archaeologists on Sumer, Akkad and Babylonia
these weren't even recognised generally until after the second world war
too late for Blavatsky
she was dead by then
but as I said
had her source been credible she wouldn't have had to wait for archaeologists to make this distinction for her would she
she would have known
had she mentioned it then it would have been proof of her genuine ability
as she failed to mention it then it stands as just the opposite
proof of her fallibility to divine anything that wasn't common knowledge at the time she was writing
she once famously claimed that Stonehenge was constructed "37,000" years ago
Edgar Cayce also disqualifies himself on this point as he states that stonehenge was built "around 1700bce by a tribe of Dan"



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Thanks again for the info.






she once famously claimed that Stonehenge was constructed "37,000" years ago




Where did she claim that?

I'm not sure how old they really are... but Godfrey Higgins(whom H.P.B. cited), being a Druid and FreeMason himself, is probably the most reliable resource on the subject.




members.tripod.com...


BOOK I - CHAPTER IV

Page 59

… In my Essay on The Celtic Druids, I have shewn, that a great nation called Celtæ, of whom the Druids were the priests, spread themselves almost over the whole earth, and are to be traced in their rude gigantic monuments from India to the extremities of Britain. Who these can have been but the early individuals of the black nation of whom we have been treating I know not, and in this opinion I am not singular. The learned Maurice says, "Cuthites, i. e. Celts, built the great temples in India and Britain, and excavated the caves of the former."* And the learned Mathematician, Reuben Burrow, has no hesitation in pronouncing Stonehenge to be a temple of the black, curly-headed Buddha.









Originally posted by Marduk Edgar Cayce also disqualifies himself on this point as he states that stonehenge was built "around 1700bce by a tribe of Dan"




Ah, who knows?

The Tribes of Israel are mostly symbolic anyway.

The actual events of their historic lives, are probably not even very close to their Kabbalistic symbolism.

This is why the "historical dates" found in the Biblical texts often-times don't match the literal history.

One example of this shows that the Hebrews were never slaves of the Khemetians, as the Torah describes(Master Builders from all over the World would have been happy to help Build the Pyramids, the Khemetians did not need "slaves").

The story is totally Symbolic.






Originally posted by Marduk
so really your question focuses on the distinction made by archaeologists on Sumer, Akkad and Babylonia
these weren't even recognised generally until after the second world war
too late for Blavatsky
she was dead by then
but as I said
had her source been credible she wouldn't have had to wait for archaeologists to make this distinction for her would she
she would have known
had she mentioned it then it would have been proof of her genuine ability
as she failed to mention it then it stands as just the opposite
proof of her fallibility to divine anything that wasn't common knowledge at the time she was writing




It would have been "proof".

But do we even have any idea, as to the reasons for why she didn't predict the discovery of Sumer?

Why should she?

Besides, it is said that she was not yet a Master when she wrote her books.

So she may have not even known about Sumer herself.

Should the Divine Hierarchies just come out and predict everything for us, without us having to do any of the work for ourselves?

We have to remember that Adepts don't lay everything out openly for the profane.

They'll lead true seekers to where they need to be(meaning to enter Initiation) in order to discover the truths beneath the symbolism.

And they'll mislead dishonest people, using blinds and incomprehensible(to the intellect) metaphors.

This is why many foolish "Alchemists" were trying to make literal gold out of lead, without any real Spiritual training.

Or why they looked everywhere outside for the Philosophical Stone, not knowing that it was right there in their own Sexual Glands the whole time.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
H.P.B. being a devout supporter of H.H. the Dalai Lama, even wrote that the Bonpos are black magicians:

Buddhism, FreeMasonry, and Gnosis


If she actually thought that they were, like many other Gelug-Pa's, I know not.

I'm sure that the Masters of the Gelug School knew that not all of them were black magicians.

However, the mission of the Gelug school was to teach something exoterically "opposed" to some of the things that the Bonpos were teaching.

(Although, some Bonpos actually are Black Magicians)




[edit on 10-2-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
she wrote it in the secret doctrine iirc
it was so well known that her followers are still giving lectures on it today


I would point out a very large time difference between the two constructions, as we know from H.B. Blavatsky that the erection of Stonehenge took place some 37, 000 years ago.

www.theosophical.org.uk...

the idea that it was built by druids was first mentioned by John Aubrey in the 17th century
he really didn't have a clue and had got the ideas of druids from the journals of Tacitus.
Tacitus simply connected stonehenge with druids because he was on a military campaign against them at the time and he wrote about the site in connection with them
in fact Stonehenge predates the arrival of any celtic druid by about 2500 years

it consists of several stages of construction starting around 3200bce and lasting 500 years
so really
your Godfrey Higgins would be vastly unqualified to comment therefore
his comments that stonehenge was the home of a black curly headed magician is so ludicrous that I can only presume you posted it for laughs
it certainly got me chuckling
there for instance was also no great nation called Celtae which covered the whole earth at any time




But do we even have any idea, as to the reasons for why she didn't predict the discovery of Sumer?

yes
because she was a fraud just capitalising on the theospophy craze that swept that period
it didn't last long as the science of archaeology was soon proving most of the claims made by these adepts were complete horse manure most were copied from the works of other authors and this was actually proven shortly after her death



Much of Helena Blavatsky's writing contained strong racial themes. She regularly contrasts "Aryan" with "Semitic" culture, to the detriment of the latter, asserting that Semitic peoples are an offshoot of Aryans who have become "degenerate in spirituality and perfected in materiality" (The Secret Doctrine, Vol.II, p.200). Blavatsky also sorted the races of the world by their relation to the "Fifth Race" (the Atlanteans) putting the Aryans on the top and describing Aborigines (i.e., Native Australians and Tasmanians) as "semi-animal creatures."

Her work influenced Nazi ideology.

"Nazi 'science' has brought hoots of derision from those who hold to the Cartesian model. In place of psychology there was an occult frappe composed of the mysticism of Gurdijeff, the theosophy of Madame Blavatsky and the archetypes of Nordic mythology."[8]
The Society for Psychical Research, as part of their ongoing scientific attempts to study and document evidence of the supernatural realm, sent a researcher to investigate Blavatsky's claim to mediumistic tendencies. That researcher's report, issued by the SPR's concluded that Blavatsky "has achieved a title to permanent remembrance as one of the most accomplished and interesting imposters in history". (For further discussion see, Ghost Hunters: William James and the Search for Scientific Proof of Life After Death by Deborah Blum). It should also be noted that SPR scientists were quite open and candid about the cases they were unable to debunk and therefore classified as true paranormal occurrences. (See also: The Hodgson Report).

Plagiarism is a marked characteristic of the writings alike of Mme. Blavatsky and of the mahatmas. In Isis Unveiled I have traced some 2,000 passages copied from other books without credit. Her Secret Doctrine is permeated with similar plagiarisms. The Voice of the Silence, claimed to be a translation by her of a Tibetan work, is a compilation from various Buddhistic and Brahmanical works--a wholesale plagiarism. The Book of Dzyan, another bogus translation of an alleged ancient work, is also a compilation from various uncredited sources—all of them 19th century books."[9] 'Various Buddhistic and Brahmanical works' are the Rigveda, the Vishnu Purana, and the Bhagavata Purana. Specific plagiarized passages in published works are cited in these articles: [10] [11] and especially [12]


en.wikipedia.org...
````````````````````
installed 'ex' tags for external material

[edit on 10/2/07 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Let us not confuse black-magicians...:















...with black-skinned White-Magician curly headed Buddhas from Eastern-Kush:




















posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
As for all that Nazi stuff about H.P.B., I already crushed that nonsense when Byrd brought it up.

See the links I posted at the top of that "Buddhism, FreeMasonry, and Gnosis" thread, mentioned in the post about Bonpos a couple posts back.

And the links in this post:

Black lodge vs White lodge



Also, I already gave other links a few posts back, to posts about how the Nazis twisted the Theosophical teachings for their perverted agendas.


And Godfrey Higgins was not just a profane day-dreaming "New Age" type.

He was a Druid, an authentic FreeMason, Historian, and Philosopher who had access to ancient records not accessible to vulgar-historians.




[edit on 10-2-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I also proved that the Books of Dzyan taken from the Books of Kiu-Te(rGyud-sde), are now proven to be of the authentic Kangyur or Tengyur(I can't remember which) canon of Tibet.

So now the cynical skeptical idiots have to eat their words.


But of course you ignored that too.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   


And Godfrey Higgins was not just a profane day-dreaming "New Age" type.

He was a Druid, an authentic FreeMason, Historian, and Philosopher who had access to ancient records not accessible to vulgar-historians.


err ok
you know which order of druids he belonged to ?
claiming he has secret knowledge because he was a free mason is a bit untenable
i admit he may have known a bit more about handshakes than me
but thats about it
historian is a no go as well because he didnt have access to modern scientific methods and at the time he was writing archaeology was in its infancy
thats the reason everyone was giving silly dates for stonehenge in the first place
whats a vulgar historian ?
you mean this guy ?





top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join