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.

 

Human Third Eyes compared to Parietal Eyes in Reptiles

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
In zoology the other day we were talking about tuataras and other reptiles that have parietal eyes, or third eyes (en.wikipedia.org... www.anapsid.org... seedmagazine.com...).

The main reason they have these eyes is to sense light, not direct images. So here is my theory:

Light is a wave and a particle. Other energy waves have been often linked to metaphysical activity. So perhaps the human third eye is a concentration of cells that are able to detect these other energy waves: not light, but "senses" that vibrate through air in waves. Perhaps we are so used to it as a species that we no longer realize it. If the third eye is used for light detection in other species, why cannot it be used for wave detection in humans? Or perhaps it is a vestigial structure and at one point in time it was able to detect light the way that reptile parietal eyes do. But now it is just a remnant with little or no modern use.

What do you think? A little random, and unlike my other posts. I'm a tad shaky on paranormal studies.



[edit on 5/30/2009 by ravenshadow13]




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Could be the reason why psychics sense things others don't. Maybe their third eye is more developed or they know how to use it more than us totally-devoid-of-psychic ability people. Could be that they sense the energy through their third eye and can translate it into form in their mind. Sounds reasonable to me at least.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Right on.


As always, Madame Blavatsky has much to say on this subject. These quotes taken from The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 2.


He instances the case of "spurs, plumes, and brilliant colours, acquired for battle or for ornament by male birds" and only partially inherited by their female descendants. In the problem to be dealt with, however, the need of a more satisfactory explanation is evident, the facts being of so much more prominent and important a character than the mere superficial details with which they are compared by Darwin. Why not candidly admit the argument in favour of the hermaphroditism which characterises the old fauna? Occultism proposes a solution which embraces the facts in a most comprehensive and simple manner. These relics of a prior androgyne stock must be placed in the same category as the pineal gland, and other organs as mysterious, which afford us silent testimony as to the reality of functions which have long since become atrophied in the course of animal and human progress, but which once played a signal part in the general economy of primeval life.



Unscientific as this may appear in our day of exact learning, Descartes was yet far nearer the occult truth than is any Hæckel. For the pineal gland, as shown, is far more connected with Soul and Spirit than with the physiological senses of man. Had the leading Scientists a glimmer of the real processes employed by the Evolutionary Impulse, and the winding cyclic course of this great law, they would know instead of conjecturing; and feel as certain of the future physical transformations of the human kind by the knowledge of its past forms. Then, would they see the fallacy and all the absurdity of their modern "blind-force" and mechanical processes of nature; realizing, in consequence of such knowledge, that the said pineal gland, for instance, could not but be disabled for physical use at this stage of our cycle. If the odd "eye" in man is now atrophied, it is a proof that, as in the lower animal, it has once been active; for nature never creates the smallest, the most insignificant form without some definite purpose and use. It was an active organ, we say, at that stage of evolution when the spiritual element in man reigned supreme over the hardly nascent intellectual and psychic elements. And, as the cycle ran down toward that point when the physiological senses were developed by, and went pari passu with, the growth and consolidation of the physical man, the interminable and complex vicissitudes and tribulations of zoological development, that median "eye" ended by atrophying along with the early spiritual and purely psychic characteristics in man. The eye is the mirror and also the window of the soul, says popular wisdom, † and Vox populi Vox Dei.



It is a curious fact that it is especially in human beings that the cerebral hemispheres and the lateral ventricles have been developed, and that the optic thalami, corpora quadrigemina, and corpora striata are the principal parts which are developed in the mammalian brain. Moreover it is asserted that the intellect of any man may to some extent be gauged by the development of the central convolutions and the fore part of the cerebral hemispheres. It would seem a natural corollary that if the development and increased size of the pineal gland may be considered to be an index of the astral capacities and spiritual proclivities of any man, there will be a corresponding development of that part of the cranium, or an increase in the size of the pineal gland at the expense of the hinder part of the cerebral hemispheres. It is a curious speculation which would receive a confirmation in this case. We should see, below and behind, the cerebellum which has been held to be the seat of all the animal proclivities of a human being, and which is allowed by science to be the great centre for all the physiologically co-ordinated movements of the body, such as walking, eating, etc., etc.; in front, the fore-part of the brain — the cerebral hemispheres — the part especially connected with the development of the intellectual powers in man; and in the middle, dominating them both, and especially the animal functions, the developed pineal gland, in connection with the more highly evolved, or spiritual man.


The Secret Doctrine, Volume II

SnF. Check it out.




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


But Blavatsky also thought that people on Atlantis had crazy spirits from Mars. I mean, I appreciate the connection, but not so sure I want to be compared with her.

Thanks for the comments though, guys. I'm not really good at metaphysics or paranormal or philosophizing type stuff. It was just a thought that I had.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Could you elaborate more? I do not doubt what you are trying to say, as my mind has been blown so many times while researching her work. I am just not sure what you mean by 'thought that people on Atlantis had crazy spirits from Mars'. Like reincarnations from past lives on Mars?

I think she thinks that because of pythagoras, and plato, and in what I quoted she references Descartes. I believe Pythagoras wrote about how every planet in our solar system has life on it(or has had life in the long history of the universe). Can't remember where I came across that though...

If you end up studying the Vedas(from before Hinduism) or Esoteric Buddhism these types of things pop up. Sometimes the truth really is stranger than fiction.

Oh, and one note I always like to remind people of, is that it doesn't hardly matter if we believe or study the ancient wisdom - if those that 'call the shots' on the world stage DO believe in these teachings.

Ask the pro, Jim Marrs, or read some of his literature about it.

Anywho, I think your theory is basically correct, or at least how I see it. I think Blavatsky not only helps your theory, but cements it as fact. Of course, when dealing with many ages of development, it will more or less be an 'abstract' theory to work with.




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


I'm referring to The Stanzas of Dyzan and her explanation of the root races and their migration from Atlantis to Lemuria.

www.theosociety.org...

And all that goodness. I first came upon Blavatsky when doing research on Atlantis, and through the writings of Donnelly. When I investigated her more, I realized I did not agree with her ideas. I don't think they're wrong, I'm sure some of them are right, but she seemed a tad out there.

More stuff:
www.angelrainbows.com...

www.burlingtonnews.net...



[edit on 5/30/2009 by ravenshadow13]



new topics

top topics
 
3

log in

join