Caesar, Gurdjieff and abduction

[mkrnhr]

FWIW, from what I've read about JC so far, I don't know where the notion of him being promiscuous comes from. Some time ago a youtube documentary about Pompeii (the Roman city) was linked somewhere and some historians suspect that the practices described in it (prostitution, orgies, etc.) were not an exception confined to this particularity city, but rather the norm elsewhere in the empire. With his popularity, if he really was promiscuous, JC would have fathered hundreds of children.

 

[WIN 52]

I certainly did it, before I joined this Forum. Matter of fact, I used to condemn almost every human behavior, because I was living influence of 48 Cosmic Law and furthermore countless, society and man made law.

But nowadays I trying to be free from it, and not to judge others, because, I do not have ability to know others circumstances or persons motive.

Thanks for this, there seems to be a lot of judgment going on in here.

The way that it was explained to me is that I did what was necessary, without judgment. With regards to my mission destiny profile. Those women also agreed to have my children in the fifth dimension, prior to incarnation, should we happen to meet here and the circumstances were right.

You see, judgment is a 3D STS thing. I have never felt judgment coming from my guides, only from people here in 3D land.

 

[liffy]

With his popularity, if he really was promiscuous, JC would have fathered hundreds of children.

Well, if it was not the conscious intentionof JC that the sexual encounters happened in order to breed, there are some ways to avoid this, with at least some reliability.

 

[sitting]

... from what I've read about JC so far, I don't know where the notion of him being promiscuous comes from.

I think possibly from this:

Q: (Pierre) And how many descendants of Caesar are in this room?
A: All of you! Caesar "got around!"

FWIW.

 

[Corvus]

Thanks for this, there seems to be a lot of judgment going on in here.

Not the first nor the last time, people are always quick on throwing stones while they should look first at themselves as said. People also change through experience and knowledge. People should get with the fact that reality does not function as they would like to based on "their" perceptions of right or wrong, or positive or negative, because in this latter words there is also prejudice in some people, not a neutral look at it, just a mask for right and wrong approach, it is all easily recognisable from the words people use, not mentioning not seeing the whole picture. It is like I know there are things I do not know but still I think....., and I know there is rule of three but still prefer black and white world. To function in this world as based on white is utterly impossible in the enviroment of power, maybe in the Buddha scenario where you just go in the woods and meditate and there is no outside influence and stimuli. When it comes to marriage being sacred, people change based on their awarnes, there could be various reasons it is broken depending on person, rise of awarnes in him/her, other unknown goal and because they are after all 3d human. If there is a real soulmate there would be no breaking, could be that the other person is not fulfilling any more which is common thing nowdays because of cultural norms and enviroment, being strict in that view shows some christian programming. In some muslim countries they have many women if they can give upkeep for them, it is a cultural influence.

If there was not Ceasar getting around maybe some of you would not be here today and this place would be very dark, if that was not Cs only giving some encouregment with that statement.

 

[Deleted member 4320]

Q: (Pierre) And how many descendants of Caesar are in this room? (L) Oh, that's a tricky question!

A: All of you! Caesar "got around!"

I have some idea.

What if "Caesar" isn't just mean one person, but means "Caesar's genes".

At the one occasion C's said:

Q: (L) Jesus had children? Who was he married to?

A: Was not.

Q: (L) You mean he had illegitimate children?

A: Subjective institutionally.

Q: (L) Who was the mother of these children?

A: There were three women.

Q: (L) There were three women?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Are they mentioned in the Bible?

A: One is but not by name.

Q: (L) Who was one of them?

A: Alicia.

Q: (L) What was the name of the second one?

A: Rafea.

Q: (L) The third one?

A: Vella. Romans.

Q: (L) All three of them were Romans?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And what happened to the children?

A: Survived and multiplied fruitfully.

Q: (L) How many children were there from the three mothers?

A: Three.

Q: (L) Is that, as some people claim, the true meaning of the search for the Holy Grail, that it is not a cup but the "Sang Real", or holy blood line?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Are there any descendants of Jesus living today?

A: 364,142.

And it may be not the matter of the promiscuity of the Julius Caesar as the one person, but the matter of resourcefulness, adaptiveness, health and fertility of his progeny.

 

[Muxel]

I agree, "got around" was probably in the vein of a double entendre.

So yes, Caesar may have been able to afford himself multiple partners (not uncommon in today's world, so who are we to judge!), but also large numbers of people do share a common male ancestor if you go far enough up the line.

Plus if I'm not wrong, everybody in the room was of White-European descent at the time the question was asked.

So it's not a far-out thing.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Interesting turn this thread took - and my, how quickly it grew in the last few days.

It's hard to add anything to what was already made clear, but I'd just like to re-mention that we don't really know what is true about Caesar (and even Gurdjieff), never mind important details that would make things clearer about making any assessment of right or wrong behavior, even beyond the context of when and where they lived. I just think there's way too much speculation to make any relevant comments. The teacher-student aspect is definitely one that can be questioned in the case of G, though.

I think, as Laura said, the whole problem of promiscuity is a practical, energetic one - one that is definitely potentially detrimental. But as she also made the rather obvious point, I really doubt (and have always doubted) the universe gives a damn about people's consensual sexual relations. FWIW.


By the way Laura, those two posts in the Roman religion thread you started were posted before somewhere on the forum, weren't they? I could have sworn I read them a couple of years ago, but I think there were more posts as well.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Q: (Pierre) And how many descendants of Caesar are in this room? (L) Oh, that's a tricky question!

A: All of you! Caesar "got around!"

I have some idea.

What if "Caesar" isn't just mean one person, but means "Caesar's genes".

Q: (L) Are there any descendants of Jesus living today?

A: 364,142.

And it may be not the matter of the promiscuity of the Julius Caesar as the one person, but the matter of resourcefulness, adaptiveness, health and fertility of his progeny.

Good point! I hadn't thought of it that way, but it's definitely possible. I tried to find some data on how many descendants of a single couple living 50 generations ago (assuming Caesar lived as few as 1500 years ago, and generations being 30 years) would perhaps be alive today. I'm guessing that finding an accurate number is probably difficult, given all the factors that would need to be taken into account (varying mortality rates, birth rates, the need to avoid double counting of shared descendants/ancestors, population bottlenecks, etc.). Aside from overly simplistic formulae to calculate this, I couldn't find anything that looked solid. Maybe someone can find something more accurate. But I did find this:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/07/charlemagnes-dna-and-our-universal-royalty/
https://gcbias.org/european-genealogy-faq/

According to these researchers, all Europeans can trace their ancestry back just 1000 years ago:

You have 2 parents, 4 grand-parents, 8 great-grandparents, and so on doubling every generation. After k generations you have 2^k ancestors, and this number grows so quickly that just a thousand years back (~30 generations) you have roughly 1 billion ancestors, which is far larger than the population size of the Earth (let alone Europe) back then. The consequence is that anyone alive 1,000 years ago who left any descendants will be an ancestor of every European. While the world population is larger than the European population, the rate of growth of number of ancestors quickly dwarfs this difference, and so every human is likely related genealogically to every other human over only a slightly longer time period.

I can't judge the math, but if this is even close, then, as the NG article linked to above says, citing an earlier study with similar results:

Suddenly, my pedigree looked classier: I am a descendant of Charlemagne. Of course, so is every other European. By the way, I’m also a descendant of Nefertiti. And so are you, and everyone else on Earth today. Chang figured that out by expanding his model from living Europeans to living humans, and getting an estimate of 3400 years instead of a thousand for the all-ancestor generation.

Of course, that's assuming that the lines of Charlemagne and Nefertiti (or any other line) did not become 'cut off' at some point. Which leads me to another question: what are the chances of any particular person's line of descent going 'extinct'? After how many generations do the chances of your line continuing pretty much become a sure thing?

For example, if you and your mate only have 1 child, then if your child dies without having children, your personal family tree ends. But after a certain number of generations, you may have so many descendants that the chances of ALL of them dying off become slim to none. Again, I couldn't find any research to give an answer, so if anyone knows any resources, please share!

 

[mkrnhr]

For example, if you and your mate only have 1 child, then if your child dies without having children, your personal family tree ends. But after a certain number of generations, you may have so many descendants that the chances of ALL of them dying off become slim to none. Again, I couldn't find any research to give an answer, so if anyone knows any resources, please share!

I was thinking along the same lines. It's difficult to make an estimate though because of the "lucky gene survival" factor. If we factor in genetic bottlenecks in times of plagues, large-scale exterminations, etc. those gene that survive have more chance to spread to even a larger portion of the next generations. Also, people used to be much more mobile than the moderns can imagine, especially after such catastrophes. There are so many factors that may work in favor of the propagation of certain genes (luck, aristocracy, network societies, information field "intervention") that exact statistics are difficult. However, it's possible that lots of people would descend from someone somewhere who wasn't particularly "promiscuous". Maybe it's the case, and maybe not, but from the evidence presented so far, nothing of that sort can be solidly inferred. OSIT

 

[shijing]

I wanted to say thanks to Laura for starting the Religion in Ancient Rome thread and to Miss.K for finding and posting the Conscience vs Morality excerpt to provide more context for this discussion.

I dunno, I think that an effort has to be made to infer "abuse of position" here, and that you might be engaging in some black and white thinking of the moralistic sort yourself. I can see how it might look bad to someone who sees G as an idol and that he must be "all good", but for someone who understands the nature and background to true spiritual development of human beings, and that many things are 'pre-chosen' and beyond conscious awareness and far 'bigger' than any single individual, I would think that a much less judgmental attitude should be taken.

A good exercise might be look at our own lives and relationships and see how they measure up. It's rather easy to focus on sexual promiscuity, since that is a "sin" by modern social moral standards, and give ourselves a clean bill of health, but in terms of the Work, 'sinning' involves thoughts, words and deeds that are generally not looked upon in any negative way by modern social moral standards.

So I suppose what I am saying is that holding the lives of these individuals up to a standard of morality today (or at any other time) may be like comparing apples to oranges due to the roles they were destined (or 'pre-chose) to play.

That may be the case, and I think you make a very good suggestion in your second paragraph above. I do want to clarify that in asking about the sexual history of Caesar and Gurdjieff, I’m not looking to cast aspersions on them or denigrate all of the important contributions they’ve made in other parts of their lives. When I asked my second question at the beginning of this thread, what I was trying to reconcile were some of the potential dangers (both physical and spiritual) of engaging with multiple partners -- and a bit later the responsibilities of parenthood, at least some of which might be considered universal and not merely culture-bound – with a deeper, unseen arena that these choices might be embedded within. So I wasn’t really thinking about the issue in terms of “why were they behaving badly” in a moral sense as much as wondering about the fundamental consequences of their choices in an objective sense. Germane to this line of questioning, I think, are things like the following which seem less relative/more universal:

So in the end, it is only a practical concern: does the activity in some way cause detriment to self or others? What kind? In what context? […] From our point of view, sexual issues are connected to energetic issues: if one has an AIM to increase their awareness and FRV, then paying attention to such is important. Especially in the particular time we live when such energies have been coopted to negative usages. Additionally, we are aware that channeling such energies, such as within a monogamous/soul relationship can also enhance one's FRV and awareness. But that is really it. It's simply pragmatic.

What DOES matter however, are issues of attachment, possessiveness, abuse, control & domination.

As far as the “different culture, different time” argument goes, I don’t have a problem accepting that in Caesar’s case. Gurdjieff’s case seems a bit more complicated to me, but that may be due to lack of information and perspective (and that’s basically the reason I asked about it in the first place). I think I understand your position about “mission destiny profile”, but let me summarize it for clarity, and let me know if I’ve misunderstood any part of it:

‘A particularly advanced soul may assume a specific mission prior to incarnation with specific objectives. Because the body they incarnate into may be endowed with some selective genetic advantage(s) (for example, a capacity for greater than average willpower), one of these objectives may be to “multiply fruitfully” in order to seed these advantages into the greater population, allowing their descendants the same advantage in furthering their spiritual growth as well as potentially encouraging the same in those around them. Because this pre-incarnative decision is not normally accessible to the conscious mind, someone with this profile may make choices which they themselves find confusing or counter-intuitive at times (which may also be the case for their partner(s)). Nevertheless, an important task is being accomplished from the point of view of a higher reality.’

If I’ve got that right, then it would be an interesting perspective on this question – although again, difficult to confirm through conventional research.

(As an aside, when I started this thread, I wasn’t sure it would get much of a response – I thought if it did, it would be mostly about the first abduction question (which was the one I was primarily interested in), and not so much about the sex question. It’s interesting how it turned out, and it’s been quite an informative discussion!)

Generations are usually calculated at 25 years, in other words the time from birth until the age of having children. Otherwise, using 75 years, I would be of the same generation as someone born in the 1800s. What you were referring to is lifetimes.

Thanks Mr. Premise – that makes sense, and it looks like AI got the math to come out right below:

I have some idea. What if "Caesar" isn't just mean one person, but means "Caesar's genes" […] And it may be not the matter of the promiscuity of the Julius Caesar as the one person, but the matter of resourcefulness, adaptiveness, health and fertility of his progeny.

Q: (L) And what happened to the children?

A: Survived and multiplied fruitfully.

Good point! I hadn't thought of it that way, but it's definitely possible. I tried to find some data on how many descendants of a single couple living 50 generations ago (assuming Caesar lived as few as 1500 years ago, and generations being 30 years) would perhaps be alive today. I'm guessing that finding an accurate number is probably difficult, given all the factors that would need to be taken into account (varying mortality rates, birth rates, the need to avoid double counting of shared descendants/ancestors, population bottlenecks, etc.).

I was thinking along the same lines. It's difficult to make an estimate though because of the "lucky gene survival" factor. If we factor in genetic bottlenecks in times of plagues, large-scale exterminations, etc. those gene that survive have more chance to spread to even a larger portion of the next generations. Also, people used to be much more mobile than the moderns can imagine, especially after such catastrophes. There are so many factors that may work in favor of the propagation of certain genes (luck, aristocracy, network societies, information field "intervention") that exact statistics are difficult. However, it's possible that lots of people would descend from someone somewhere who wasn't particularly "promiscuous". Maybe it's the case, and maybe not, but from the evidence presented so far, nothing of that sort can be solidly inferred.

Thanks lux for posting the excerpt you did that I quoted from above, and I agree that this is probably going in the right direction. I don’t have any further data to add at this point either, but it does seem reasonable to attribute the ‘Caesarian population explosion’ primarily to his descendants.

 

[Dirgni]

Q: (L) Jesus had children? Who was he married to?

A: Was not.

Q: (L) You mean he had illegitimate children?

A: Subjective institutionally.

Q: (L) Who was the mother of these children?

A: There were three women.

Q: (L) There were three women?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Are they mentioned in the Bible?

A: One is but not by name.

Q: (L) Who was one of them?

A: Alicia.

Q: (L) What was the name of the second one?

A: Rafea.

Q: (L) The third one?

A: Vella. Romans.

Q: (L) All three of them were Romans?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And what happened to the children?

A: Survived and multiplied fruitfully.

Q: (L) How many children were there from the three mothers?

A: Three.

Q: (L) Is that, as some people claim, the true meaning of the search for the Holy Grail, that it is not a cup but the "Sang Real", or holy blood line?
{See "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." by Lincoln, Leigh and Baigent.}

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Are there any descendants of Jesus living today?

A: 364,142.

Caesar had no surviving descendants from his daughter Julia and his grandchild from Julia. As daughter Julia could not be his heir due to Roman law. Octavian (Augustus) was Caesars heir. So Caesars other children could be daughters (who could not inherit), "not officially known", born into a longer lasting relationship of Caesar, born into something like a morganatic marriage, born into a non-Roman marriage, born with another "official" father (maybe even with knowledge of this other father), ...

When we interpret that the C's meant Caesar in the quote above (and not the Jewish rebel/rebels), then Caesar had additional 3 children from 3 women he maybe did "not marry". I assume that Caesar himself "got around" by traveling and his children were born in different parts of Roman Europe including border parts. Also his descendents could have migrated/traveled a bit, so that today's descendents are distributed over many countries. That he "got around" does not necessarily mean that he had sex with many women. As Laura mentioned above he was very busy with other things in his adult live.

Caesar was taking care of his soldiers and plebeian people. Therefore I think most probably there were some arrangements or other that his children were taken care of - if he knew about them.

There were those stories about King Arthur's birth and childhood in seclusion/concealment. Maybe some of the stories of one of Caesars children was remembered this way? The King Arthur stories were ascribed to places in Britain and France (Brittany). Besides in what is now Italy, Caesar was in what is now (Spain), (Western Germany), (Benelux), France, Southern Britain.

Also in the holy grail story (Joseph of Arimathea) there is some connection with France and Southern Britain. Coincidence or is there a bit of history coming down to us as stories?


Just some speculations, of course.

 

[Laura]

Caesar had no surviving descendants from his daughter Julia and his grandchild from Julia. As daughter Julia could not be his heir due to Roman law. Octavian (Augustus) was Caesars heir. So Caesars other children could be daughters (who could not inherit), "not officially known", born into a longer lasting relationship of Caesar, born into something like a morganatic marriage, born into a non-Roman marriage, born with another "official" father (maybe even with knowledge of this other father), ...

When we interpret that the C's meant Caesar in the quote above (and not the Jewish rebel/rebels), then Caesar had additional 3 children from 3 women he maybe did "not marry". I assume that Caesar himself "got around" by traveling and his children were born in different parts of Roman Europe including border parts. Also his descendents could have migrated/traveled a bit, so that today's descendents are distributed over many countries. That he "got around" does not necessarily mean that he had sex with many women. As Laura mentioned above he was very busy with other things in his adult live.

Caesar was taking care of his soldiers and plebeian people. Therefore I think most probably there were some arrangements or other that his children were taken care of - if he knew about them.

There were those stories about King Arthur's birth and childhood in seclusion/concealment. Maybe some of the stories of one of Caesars children was remembered this way? The King Arthur stories were ascribed to places in Britain and France (Brittany). Besides in what is now Italy, Caesar was in what is now (Spain), (Western Germany), (Benelux), France, Southern Britain.

Also in the holy grail story (Joseph of Arimathea) there is some connection with France and Southern Britain. Coincidence or is there a bit of history coming down to us as stories?


Just some speculations, of course.

Indeed you may be onto something very useful there. I agree that since he helped all his friends, and since the guy who claimed to be his great grandson had obviously been given Roman citizenship, the indicators are that Caesar would have seen to it that any children were provided for had he known about them. And he was in Gaul long enough to know, I think. So maybe, just maybe, this is the real key to all those legends?

 

[Elohir]

Thank you Dirgni for this interesting suggestion and the reminder about Jesus/caesar children.

364 142 is pretty big. I wonder what kind of people we could find among them and if they all know their own story. Were they all protected since the beginning ? is it still the case ? Maybe some of them are famous while others live a simple life as an unknow person. We cannot deny that being a Caesar's descendant is something special at least genetically.

The point concerning King Arthur deserves a search.

 

[WIN 52]

Was Gurdjieff a direct descendant of Cesar?