Session 11 June 2011

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
While translatinig I stumbled upon a question. Could someone help me trying to understand the following sentence marked with blue?
A: There is the difference, see? You eat for optimal fuel, they eat to support an illusion.

Q: (L) Well, they don't all eat to support an illusion. A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel illusion. (Perceval) But they couldn't think that if they really objectively read all the details.

A: They lack objective knowledge.

Is it the same as: "A lot of them think[ing] that vegetables are an optimal [food] fuel illusion."?
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
thorbiorn said:
While translatinig I stumbled upon a question. Could someone help me trying to understand the following sentence marked with blue?
A: There is the difference, see? You eat for optimal fuel, they eat to support an illusion.

Q: (L) Well, they don't all eat to support an illusion. A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel illusion. (Perceval) But they couldn't think that if they really objectively read all the details.

A: They lack objective knowledge.

Is it the same as: "A lot of them think[ing] that vegetables are an optimal [food] fuel illusion."?

I would say one can simplify it as "A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel: illusion" for translation.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
mkrnhr said:
thorbiorn said:
While translatinig I stumbled upon a question. Could someone help me trying to understand the following sentence marked with blue?
A: There is the difference, see? You eat for optimal fuel, they eat to support an illusion.

Q: (L) Well, they don't all eat to support an illusion. A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel illusion. (Perceval) But they couldn't think that if they really objectively read all the details.

A: They lack objective knowledge.

Is it the same as: "A lot of them think[ing] that vegetables are an optimal [food] fuel illusion."?

I would say one can simplify it as "A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel: illusion" for translation.
Thank you mkrnhr, I'll take that angle.
 

3DStudent

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
When I read it again, in English the original sounds fine. If you replace the word "think" with "believe in" it becomes clearer. What was being referred to was the illusion of "vegetables are an optimal fuel". Hope that makes sense.
 

Luks

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Well, here ->
A: There is the difference, see? You eat for optimal fuel, they eat to support an illusion.
Are about that certain people are vegetarians in order to think about themselves that they are more spiritual because they choose to eat vegetables.

Here ->
Q: (L) Well, they don't all eat to support an illusion. A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel illusion. (Perceval) But they couldn't think that if they really objectively read all the details.

A: They lack objective knowledge.
About that they are just misinformed and choose to eat vegetables because think that this is the proper way of feeding.

I am not especially good in English, but I think that the key is just read this one sentence only in full context. And take it into account while translating. Do not take just one sentence exclusively and search for the literal translation, because often it leads to suspension in the vacuum.

Maybe it could say: "A lot of them are in illusion thinking that vegetables are an optimal fuel."

Sometimes is fun to untangle language nuances.
 

DiscoveringTruth

A Disturbance in the Force
Q: (L) So they would be kind to animals only if it suits them. (Ark) But I understand that our hero Gandhi was vegetarian and yet he cared about human beings. (Perceval) Was Gandhi an organic portal?

A: Gandhi "cared" about the human cattle like himself.

Hi everyone. What does this part mean? Human cattle? That is being very inconsiderate for a man who led a nation to independence from oppressive colonial rule without lifting a gun. Seems like a very dismissive and negative remark.
 

Gawan

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
DiscoveringTruth said:
Q: (L) So they would be kind to animals only if it suits them. (Ark) But I understand that our hero Gandhi was vegetarian and yet he cared about human beings. (Perceval) Was Gandhi an organic portal?

A: Gandhi "cared" about the human cattle like himself.

Hi everyone. What does this part mean? Human cattle? That is being very inconsiderate for a man who led a nation to independence from oppressive colonial rule without lifting a gun. Seems like a very dismissive and negative remark.

I think here is one explanation:

Laura said:
Peam said:
I don't think the C's meant that Gandhi was an OP because of what they said in this seesion. I could be wrong of course.

Session #960803

A: And who says that the Sun's twin appears every 3600 years?
Q: (L) Okay, we have the 3600 year comet cluster cycle, the Sun twin is another cycle altogether, and then we have the wave, which is a Grand Cycle. So, we have three
things causing a transition in nature?
A: Like "biorhythms."
Q: (T) And we have a triple bad day coming up! Or a good day, depending on which way you look at it.
A: Bad day if you are John C. Rockefeller, good day if you are Mahatma Gandhi.

I agree. I don't think they were suggesting that Gandhi was an OP but rather that he - and the rest of us who are oppressed - are thought of as "cattle" by some of those in higher densities.

Have you read the Wave Series from Laura? Because there Laura explains in detail the relation of higher densities and that we are food for them and in that sense cattle.
 

DiscoveringTruth

A Disturbance in the Force
Oh much thanks Gawan for pointing it out! Appreciate it!

Yes I've read the Wave series and I couldn't help but notice the Cs talking about aliens eating humans like we eat cattle. A very distressing and horrifying thought to say the least. A really depressing view of reality if that's actually how things are. But given highly credible information from navy aviators, generals, police sources etc that's available out there in the literature, it seems something sinister is indeed going on Earth.

I do hope then that as Gandhi brought freedom to Indians from the oppressive British rule, if a transition to 4D is real and symbolic, that it may bring a similar freedom from 4D STS' feeding to people across the world.
 

freigeist2.0

The Force is Strong With This One
Thanks for this session. Very interesting. Reminded me of how to be careful about nutrition with my children. Greetings to you and to Kojin of Cassiopaea.
 

JeanneT

Jedi
FOTCM Member
(L) I mean it's like the whole Ra thing was about Wanderers. Wanderers according to the traditional definition are people who tend to have... (Psyche) They're more sensitive. (L) They're more sensitive, and they have to be more efficiently nourished and have better fuel and they have to really be careful with detoxification. And those people it seems to me would be susceptible to the belief that being a vegetarian would help them - only it wouldn't!

A: Yes. Carla is an example!

Q: (L) Yeah, Carla of the Ra group. She is just practically crippled with arthritis. I don't know what she eats, but the Paleo diet might do her some good. (Ailen) But then you have psychopaths who are very sick, too. (L) Yeah. I think that sometimes it's just a roll of the genetic dice. But in some cases, there's this connection. (Psyche) And we're exposed to too much toxicity these days. (L) Okay, have we done this subject? (Ark) Yes, I have a question. From a higher point of view - not just ethics and such things - but from the higher philosophical point of view, what's really wrong with cannibalism? (L) What's really wrong with cannibalism? (Perceval) We may or may not publish this answer. [laughter]

I thought I would just comment on this part after re-reading this session. As I have mentioned previously, I had an opportunity to spend an afternoon with Carla and Jim in 1996. I remember being served a lunch..it was sloppy Joes! For those who are not familiar with the ingredients it is a dish that includes hamburger meat in a tomato type sauce over buns. I have to admit that at the time, "I" was vegetarian and did not partake, having the salad instead. Now, this doesn't necessarily conflict with what the C's said, IMO, since Carla may have eaten meat but indulged in carbs, sugar and such or perhaps she had years of eating only vegetables previously...who knows for sure? I do think she was extra sensitive and held to strong beliefs in other ways and her health represented some of that, perhaps. I really can't judge it but thought I would add a piece to this puzzle.
 

Rolae

Padawan Learner
A breath of fresh air and always pertinent. A refresher read that lifts the veil of awareness little by little ; one can even experience this subtlety in this human physiology Thanks C's and participants for delivering a series of coherent truth. 💫
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom