Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 31-05-2005

Happy birthday to my dad for yesterday!

Quote of the Day:

As the esoteric traditions say, life is an opportunity to prepare for death, and we should learn to recognise the signposts along the way, so that when death comes, we can make the transition smoothly.

Terence McKenna

Editor
  1. Broken link fixed
    The Avebury link is fixed (at least at the moment!). Thanks to Mick for the heads-up.

    Peace and Respect
    Greg
    ——————————————-
    You monkeys only think you’re running things

  2. death smoothly
    What a comment from some one who talked to the green people. Smoothly, imho, is not the way of facing death. With teeth barred,spiting through the teeth, is the way I present death. The egyptian book of the dead has a formula. Smoothly is what all yuppies and comfortably numb people want for their demise, another trip to the spa. One better have a heart that weighs equal to a feather,and payment for the boatman. Shine forth brave souls! Respectfully, Dennis

    1. Shine forth brave souls!
      Right on, Dennis!

      Yeah, it sounded like something written by someone who had at some point been terrified of death. Death is nothing other than taking off the metaphorical suit of chain mail you’ve been lugging around for several decades. Like trading in a Dodge for a Lear jet — and who’d lose sleep over that kind of transition?

      Kat

      1. Fear of death
        Fear of death ‘is’ death. It is a major component of our conditioned mindset. It feeds on insecurity as even fear itself is a tool of the dead. Feeling fear is feeling the vibration of death and their world.

        We die because we fear death. Not die in the sense of leaving the physical body behind but rather in the sense of losing consciousness as we understand it. The soul knows that at the time of death, it loses its contact with the source and, consequently, loses the only possible state for it to be penetrated with the energy of the spirit. It gains freedom from material weight yet it loses freedom from death.

        Fear is not of the spirit, is not of life. Fear is the tool used against the incarnated to dominate and control the individuals while feeding upon their overexcited emotional states, states that get overexcited through fears like the fear of losing, the fear of not getting, the fear of ridicule and, the icing on the cake, the fear of death.

        Fear is domination and through fear we seek to dominate others as we are dominated by a world that fears our escape from its clutch. As we lose our fear of death to gain access to life, the dead will enter into a great turmoil and through their interaction with and through the unconscious incarnated minds, they will unleash calamities intended to create so much insecurity that the mind should be totally magnetized.

        Having lost the fear of death will allow the mind to be penetrated with the light that will guide them personally so that they are not affected physically because they are not affected psychically.

        In a sense it is true. Leaving the material body behind is a balm for the soul who sees itself back in its element. On the other hand, it is not there that the initiates go; it is not there that the spirit dwells.

        Soul’s redemption does not lie in death as in death there is no life but memory and emulation.

        1. Jeez…..
          Richard – are you sure you’re not Oscar with another login?

          I’m sure I’ve made the observation before, but you both seem to operate on the principal of “Why use 10 words to say something, when you can use 100”.

          Jeez, I kind of agree with what you’re trying to say in your post, but what a “carry on” you make in saying it.

          yer ol’ pal,

          Xibalba
          (This critique of “stuck up yer own arse writing” was brought to you by Realm of the Dead)

          1. 10 words
            Hello Xibalba

            Indeed, things could be said in 10 words. Problem is that the reader will then consider these words for their lexicon value.

            If you reuse these words by associating them with varied contexts that are at first glance similar but that show subtle ramifications, we can show implications rather than word symbolic association.

            The mind has been conditioned with words and is now trapped with their meaning.

            If I am going to limit myself to 10 words per post, it is pointless to say anything, as I will end up chatting instead of saying something.

            I have little interest in idle chat.

            You insist in blurring me with Oscar because of the way you ‘interpret’ what is written. I see all the difference in the world between the two substances although there have been similarities on the form several times. The form is not important; what is important is the spirit of the form. As you know, two similar jars can contain quite different substances.

            Please don’t take this as a rebuttal; I am simply giving an explanation on why I may sometimes write in this mode. We use words and these words are often charged with millennia of conditioned acceptation of their symbolic value that was not attributed by enlightened readers but by the need to dominate and possess human psyches. These words need to be exploded so that the spirit they can carry is freed from the psychological hold they have been empowered with. This way, information can be seen in a different light.

            If this is ‘stuck up my own arse writing’ to you, that’s your business. If someone needs to express something that is difficult to convey with current words symbolism, he can’t stop at the limit that others would impose on him on how he should use such words, so long as it is done in complete respect of others.

          2. 20 words
            >>so long as it is done in complete respect of others.

            Well, there’s the rub. That’s mighty hard to do if you’re convinced they lack the capacity to ponder for themselves.

            Kat

          3. Impressions
            If I was so convinced, I would not care to reply Kat.

            (12 words here. Need more practice.)

          4. On Verbosity
            The trouble with a plethora of lexical phantasmigorica is that although to oneself the verbosity may be mellifuously pleasing and even convey an exacting attention to precision, to others it may be confusing and even obfuscatory as well as patronisingly elitist pomposity.

            In other words, the poem is best which conveys with fewest words.

            Regards,C

          5. I know
            This is your trouble then. I gain nothing pleasant about this. You find it elitist? you are then inclined to level by the base and anything someone could say that does not satisfy your need of simplicity or that does not fit within the parameters of what you accept as acceptable either in form or in substance is to be pompous or patronizing or even written in a attempt at elitism; Quaky even perhaps.

            I can’t just adapt to satisfy your impressions, I would only then be chatting and I don’t need to come here to do that. I have a mode of expression which, given these reactions, I will not even attempt to explain. In any case nobody asked for any explanation and I will not fall in the trap of justification either.

            When I do not mesh well with something posted in a thread or another, I disregard. If I see something that rings within I expose in relation with my vibration. I can’t use others’ and won’t emulate others. I know well that this represents ‘dangers’ so to speak to express freely within public environments and of course one could ‘suppose’ that he might get slapped over the hands by even those that prone openness.

            My mistake.

            I am adding the following in an edit since interpretations are easy to come by. When I say you are leveling by the base, I am saying that you are leveling the conversation to what is accepted as being recognized as valid. You are using common sense and draw a common line. No one has to be common because common sense requires a mass to remain behind a line and never cross it.

            Our mentalities have been conditioned; everybody is willing to consider this as valid yet nobody is willing to consider the consequence: the illusion of free will. What acceptable organization of words can it be that will puncture a hole in such a bubble without indisposing in regards with the accepted concept that free will supercedes conditioning?

            Accepted behavior or accepted stances can only perpetuate this state of things.

            Many here from their writings are of the idea that human behavior is not a sane behavior. How many will then consider that these behaviors are seated on systems or mechanisms that they use themselves to define what is right or wrong?

            One can talk at an occult level or one can talk at a psychological level. Psychologically speaking, the occult level will always impact negatively on the impression unless it reinforces the hold of invisible forces over the mind. That is an encrypted reaction within the human psyche. You don’t agree? fine. Still, that is what I say.

            If one talks at the psychological level before having established the occult laws that regulate the former, the psychological will reinterpret the occult to its apparent advantage resulting in a status quo that supports the impression of being right. As soon as we live through the impression of being right, we have put an end to our evolution. You don’t agree, well all the power to you; you don’t have to.

            In the end, we are no better than the scientists of whom we are making fun. We are holding a personal truth that we hold on dear to and that insures that our karmic condition will be perpetuated. It is not for nothing that we were told that man could not save himself. He is programmed perfectly and absolutely to remain within the realm of his experimentation and is damned to continue suffering so long as he retains the impression that he is evolving.

            Why? Because he can’t cope with anything that is outside of his field of experience. Why? Because for one, he is experience and secondly, he refutes anything that is not of his perception of his own nature.

            All perceptions are illusory, including that of our nature, because they are conditioned by the mechanisms that support them (the perceptions). That is easy enough to see yet we only see it in others. (Now don’t go out babbling that I don’t apply what I say to myself, politely or not.) It would be pointless for me to say that I know what I am talking about as someone can only know for himself and not for others and that everyone is not only entitled to his own time to know but furthermore should never believe what he is told. At least I can say this: When I say something it is from my experience so I can use what I say to describe my own nature which by extension is human nature and all its philosophically acceptable when not downright adulated limitations.

            Like the initiate said: We are all in shit all the way to our nose and we think it smells good because it is our own.

            I loathe human attitudes even though you may assign the same to me. These attitudes are what is keeping us from going beyond the last frontier instead of reaching for the frontier.

            I am done.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal