Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Most are still monkeys!

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Namaste All,

 

Unfortunately most of the problems with people's thinking stems from

the fact that most were monkeys and animals until recently.

Prior to 9,000 BC there was a large population of monkey or ape

people, some had tails. According to Edgar Cayce, also these being are

well described in the Indian Ramayana from 20,000 years ago and other

Puranas.

 

It seems with reincarnation, Cayce says at least four births, and with

genetic engineering and removal of appendages etc, present human man

was put together. This was done over a period of several

hundred years up to 9,000 BC. Unfortunately the big brain has never

really been used, as there was not much previous experience or

tendencies. This accounts for the great animal tendencies at the same

time as having a larger more intelligent brain. Just still monkeys

thats all!!!!!

 

Up until this time human man was much larger in stature than the

present race.

 

Om Namah Sivaya.....Tony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

One thing 'bout monkeys...

They are expert imitators

and certainly aren't oringinal enough

to come up

with bull pucky like this.

 

David

(monkey see, monkey doo doo)

 

 

 

 

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> Namaste All,

>

> Unfortunately most of the problems with people's thinking stems from

> the fact that most were monkeys and animals until recently.

> Prior to 9,000 BC there was a large population of monkey or ape

> people, some had tails. According to Edgar Cayce, also these being

are

> well described in the Indian Ramayana from 20,000 years ago and

other

> Puranas.

>

> It seems with reincarnation, Cayce says at least four births, and

with

> genetic engineering and removal of appendages etc, present human man

> was put together. This was done over a period of several

> hundred years up to 9,000 BC. Unfortunately the big brain has never

> really been used, as there was not much previous experience or

> tendencies. This accounts for the great animal tendencies at the

same

> time as having a larger more intelligent brain. Just still monkeys

> thats all!!!!!

>

> Up until this time human man was much larger in stature than the

> present race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi

>Unfortunately most of the problems with people's thinking stems from

>the fact that most were monkeys and animals until recently.

 

Is that what it is!!!!! I'm so glad to know that! It explains so much!!

<scratch, scratch>

 

So when I have trouble with a meditation class, I'll just remember that

it's composed of something like a Jew, a Christian, a Buddhist, and 14 or

15 recent monkeys or dogs, etc. Maybe if I hunker down and look them in

the eyes and rub noses? Would that help?

 

Maybe sign language would work better? The chimps take to it well.

 

Thanks again... <scratch, scratch> this is really enlightening! :)))

 

Have some more tea?

 

Grateful Dharma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> It seems with reincarnation, Cayce says at least four births, and

with

> genetic engineering and removal of appendages etc, present human man

> was put together. This was done over a period of several

> hundred years up to 9,000 BC. Unfortunately the big brain has never

> really been used, as there was not much previous experience or

> tendencies. This accounts for the great animal tendencies at the

same

> time as having a larger more intelligent brain. Just still monkeys

> thats all!!!!!

>

 

poor tony :-( too much on the brain

 

spazbo sez: hey tony! keep you baloney!

loose baloney maby some help for tony

 

too much on the brain needs operation no doctors from atlantis in

house too bad for tony

 

bye bye done now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

On 5/2/01 at 2:28 AM david.bozzi wrote:

 

ºOne thing 'bout monkeys...

ºThey are expert imitators

ºand certainly aren't oringinal enough

ºto come up

ºwith bull pucky like this.

º

ºDavid

º(monkey see, monkey doo doo)

 

Hi David - perhaps it all depends on how "mystick" is spelled <laugh>

 

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

, david.bozzi@n... wrote:

> One thing 'bout monkeys...

> They are expert imitators

> and certainly aren't oringinal enough

> to come up

> with bull pucky like this.

>

> David

> (monkey see, monkey doo doo)

 

Namste All,

 

Unfortunately with the standardisation of the human form, one couldn't

tell anymore which was a human and which was a human animal soul. The

descendents of the Adamic souls had to use the same bodies as the

animal and human animal souls.

 

The only way to tell was by spirituality and behaviour. Adamics

followed, as it says in the Bible, a vegetarian diet and were

spiritual in nature. The animal souls were meat eaters and didn't

really follow a spiritual path, although some followed idols, such as

Baal etc.

 

This can be reflected today in the obvious underdevelopement of most

people who are meat eaters, materialists, with only a limited

spirituality. These are the human animals, with barely any development

of their vijnanamayakos or awareness sheath.

 

The Adamic descendents and those with developed awareness sheaths can

also be identified. IQ has nothing to do with it, normal human

intelligence is still in the lower mind, genius or not.

 

ONS Tony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

, David Bozzi <david.bozzi@n...> wrote:

> jb wrote:

>

> > Hi David - perhaps it all depends on how "mystick" is spelled

<laugh>

>

> LOL!

>

Namaste,

 

Sri Lakshmana Swami a direct disciple of Ramana and realised in his

presence says; Most of the people he sees were animals in their last

lives. There was even a monkey that used to come for darhshan and

worship....ONS Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi Tony,

>Unfortunately with the standardisation of the human form, one couldn't

>tell anymore which was a human and which was a human animal soul.

>snip<

>The only way to tell was by spirituality and behaviour.

>snip<

>This can be reflected today in the obvious underdevelopement of most

>people who are meat eaters, materialists, with only a limited

>spirituality. These are the human animals,

 

 

"You are what you eat," huh? Ludwig Feuerbach said it first... have you

read him? Was it the Germans he said could be understood by their high

consumption of beans?

 

Do you eat a lot of beans, Tony? :))

 

Dharma the Potato-Chip and Chocolate Eater (and Tuna, alas!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

On 5/2/01 at 3:41 PM Tony O'Clery wrote:

 

[...]

ºNamaste,

º

ºSri Lakshmana Swami a direct disciple of Ramana and realised in his

ºpresence says; Most of the people he sees were animals in their last

ºlives. There was even a monkey that used to come for darhshan and

ºworship....ONS

Those stories are well known and there are many books on the topic,

like those of Max Heindel. For some, they have a racist ring as they

also cover "evolution through the races" and, no surprise, "whiter is better".

It is rather simple: unless "awake", man is an animal with moral, ethics,

esthetics, compassion and love utilitarian, and less than skin-deep.

 

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi Lobster,

 

A very small point...

>(incidently there is no evidence for Atlantis - none

>- it was a fairy story - traded everywhere

>- nothing remains - funny that - like most myths)

 

The first written account that we know of comes from Plato (Socrates); who

said it came from Solon, the law-giver of Athens; who said he got it from

the priests of Sais in Egypt; who told him that the Greeks were "as

children in their knowledge of the history of the world." Plato placed

Atlantis in the Atlantic Ocean, "beyond the pillars of Hercules," which was

Gibraltar.

 

Edgar Cayce said that parts of Atlantis would begin to rise in a certain

year... my memory fails me as to what year. But I saw in a book pictures

taken off the coast of Bimini, in the Caribbean. The pictures show

extensive lines of large stones, just under the water but clearly visible

from a plane. These were first noticed in the year that Cayce named, which

leads people in the area - who had flown over there before - to think that

the sea floor had risen in that area.

 

When I was on the copy desk of a city newspaper (late '70s and early '80s),

we used to read the wires (AP and UP) while waiting for more copy. I

remember when there was a flurry of stories about a Soviet submarine that

reported seeing and photographing extensive ruins... stone walls and

such... somewhere in the Atlantic. The Soviets wouldn't say where the sub

was, but they said it would be in port in a few days and the photographs

would be released to the world. Then suddenly the stories stopped, and I

never heard anything else about it. :)

 

Love,

Dharma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

On 5/3/01 at 8:05 AM Lobster wrote:

 

ºSufi terminology utilises the idea

ºthat a developed woman saint becomes 'A Man'.

ºSexism?

ºPerhaps.

 

Doesn't that depend on how to read "man"?

Either a male or a human being (no gender issue emphasized).

 

ºThe Buddha was very reluctant to allow women into the Sangha?

ºSexism?

ºPerhaps.

 

Perhaps women are "liberated" already <laugh>.

 

ºOccult theory postulates that black Atlanteans

º(incidently there is no evidence for Atlantis - none

º- it was a fairy story - traded everywhere

º- nothing remains - funny that - like most myths)

ºhad white slaves. The recent enslavement of black people

ºwas karmic retribution.

ºRacism?

ºPerhaps.

 

Perhaps a statement that slavery is independent

of race, caste and creed.

 

º(Max Heindal is the Rosicrucian rascist?)

ºPerhaps it should be realised that Moses

ºmay have been a better chiseler than God.

 

Do you know Moses well enough to be sure of that?

 

ºThat Koran writers are less than literate.

º(It is interesting that - if you look at a chronologically

ºrevealed Koran - it develops in maturity

º- much as one might expect Muhamad to do)

 

But at least they were literate enough to read

and write :)

 

ºThe idea that all parts of a 'teaching' and 'teacher'

ºare complete and perfect - that no culture, social,

ºbiological, conditioned responses remain

ºmay amuse and inspire our fantasy . . .

 

Doesn't that require perceiving teaching

and teacher?

 

ºSome people try and fulfill that fantasy

º(if they are able to condition themselves to do so).

ºThe genuine guru (according to my conditioning)

ºdoes not provide empty platitudes

ºbut situations and questions.

 

And how would one recognize a "genuine guru"?

The term by itself is suggestive that there are other

gurus which would contradict the term "guru".

 

ºThe Sat Guru is regarded as more important

ºthan God because they lead us to God.

 

That sounds familiar - someone dedicated

a poem to the guru precisely for that reason.

 

ºGod it seems is incapable.

ºPerhaps so.

 

Perhaps God doesn't have any motive to lead

to Him because there is nothing but God <laugh>.

 

ºHow we react and the answers we find

ºthat all depends on our condition

ºand receptivity . . .

 

"No more questions arising" is a

pretty satisfying answer.

º

º

ºLobster Condition

 

For some, a delicacy :)

 

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...