Errors in "The Wave" (Online Version)

From Chapter 23 :

The Grail Hero, who can be anyone, is one who must discover the meeting place between the worlds where he can reestablish the links between feminine creative sovereignty and the kingship of the material realm.
The loss of communion between the divine feminine rulership of the inner land and the rightful kingship of the outer realm is what we are concerned with here. The right brain rules the land or the material reality only by right of his true union with the feminine principle and championship of her freedom.
In respect to the logic, and if the underlined 'land' talked about is well the external land here, isn't it the 'left' brain that 'rules the land or the material reality' in union with then the 'feminine principle and championship of her freedom', i.e. the right ?

According to this following sentence at the end of the chapter :
We must marry the left brain kingship of the material world to the right brain queen of the inner realm.

Please light me up if I missed something.
 
From Chapter 23 :


In respect to the logic, and if the underlined 'land' talked about is well the external land here, isn't it the 'left' brain that 'rules the land or the material reality' in union with then the 'feminine principle and championship of her freedom', i.e. the right ?

According to this following sentence at the end of the chapter :


Please light me up if I missed something.
I am not sure but I think it says that the hero of the Grail is not the one who wishes to take the damsel of his wanderings to bed but the one who (does not wish) that is to be neutral having the intention and certainty that he will find love but without the anticipation that clouds him with his reason and without the imposed or imaginative vision of how it will be.

It is like emptying the cup or emptying oneself of all that one knows or has been told that it is so that in this way the creative forces act without the speculative impurities in a natural way without impositions or pushes in perfect balance.
 
I am not sure but I think it says that the hero of the Grail is not the one who wishes to take the damsel of his wanderings to bed but the one who (does not wish) that is to be neutral having the intention and certainty that he will find love but without the anticipation that clouds him with his reason and without the imposed or imaginative vision of how it will be.

It is like emptying the cup or emptying oneself of all that one knows or has been told that it is so that in this way the creative forces act without the speculative impurities in a natural way without impositions or pushes in perfect balance.
To give you another example, someone can come and tell you that the Grail is the theory of the unified field, a Mer-ka-ba, a cylindrical object, a Matriarchal stone or a gift from God and also a talking head.

So if you empty the cup of all that they have told you means (empty yourself) ok, do you want the Grail? What for and why? Let it go and it will come by itself.

In the movie his father calls him (Indiana)! like saying (leave it) 0 wish I mean SAD

 
I am not sure but I think it says that the hero of the Grail is not the one who wishes to take the damsel of his wanderings to bed but the one who (does not wish) that is to be neutral having the intention and certainty that he will find love but without the anticipation that clouds him with his reason and without the imposed or imaginative vision of how it will be.

It is like emptying the cup or emptying oneself of all that one knows or has been told that it is so that in this way the creative forces act without the speculative impurities in a natural way without impositions or pushes in perfect balance.
Thanks for your feedback, my question was actually about semantic for the roles of left and right brains to be as clear as possible.
 
Chapter 27 :
Amplitude constitutes our ripeness” fo advancement to the next density.
Such small typos, but since I catch them... let's share them :
Knowledge is a function of consciousness and all knowledge that isknowledge and not assumption
there was nothing I could expect to change it There was no anticipation
 
Chapter 28 part 2 :

I assume there has been a quirk :
This came from Middle High German wicken, which meant to “bewitch”, and even older, from Old High German wÄ«h which meant “holy”.
devastated an area of some 2,000 km² through fireball blasts.
A similar event vis-Ã -vis our planet
that it would arrive with the present Âmillennium
and possibly even comet-borne disease pathoÂgens.
In the US today that would be equivalent to reducing the Âpopulation
In Germany and EngÂland
the core of a minor disintegration stream à la Shoemaker-Levy.”
burning up Âmountains
have existed throughout Âhistory
the DeÂpartment of Homeland Security
vis-Ã -vis the “War on Terror”
Stephens Âdidn’t think so;

The link bellow leads to the homepage but not to the referenced text :

The site for this one can’t be reached :

Page not found on this one :
 
Chapter 32 :

I am a bit puzzled by how we got to the following point.

Talking about Hermes Trismegistus being a « traitor to court of pharaoh Rana », this question/answer is then provided :
Q: Was Abraham of the Jews the same individual as Hermes, which some people are suggesting?
A: No.
And right after, this statement appears :
We find here the idea that Abraham was a betrayer of a prior covenant when he made the covenant with Jehovah.

Given the shared information up to there, how did we get to this idea ?
 
Back
Top Bottom