Session 21 September 2024
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Tuulikki
Dagobah Resident
I have been considering the smoking angle ever since joining the forum. I still haven't taken the step, partly due to the very high price of cigarettes in the UK. If the PTB are trying to abolish smoking then I want to be part of it simply because it is the PTB and they do nothing positive for humanity. Also the C's have told us that smoking is beneficial. They also said "in moderation". Not entirely sure what would be a moderate intake of cigarettes. Perhaps one or two cigarettes per day? What are the experiences of other forum members regarding the amount smoked in a day? I don't want to miss out on the benefits of smoking and end up as someone's lunch.
Tuulikki
Dagobah Resident
This is my go to explanation if asked why I don't have the vaccinations. "I am exercising my innate immune system instead of relying on chemicals". Use it or lose it. It astounds me that even medically trained staff who spend hours being instructed about the power and strength of natural immunity during medical training are still not able to trust good old mother nature.
axj
The Living Force
It is best to stay away from most commercial cigarettes, except maybe the additive-free natural brands like American Spirit. The same is true for tobacco you buy for rolling cigarettes - only the additive-free natural brands or pure tobacco. Pipes, cigars or cigarillos can be other options.
I smoke about 8-10 self-rolled cigarettes a day and to me that seems moderate. Maybe a lesser or larger amount would be moderate for other people, you have to see for yourself what your body tells you.
If you don't like smoking, nicotine patches are another alternative.
Sounds like they’re accessing the akashic records. They don’t want the remote viewer or the control to know anything about the place to be remote viewed as it will tamper with the accuracy. I’d have to find the transcript, but I think the C’s have said basically the same thing about channelers and psychics letting their own personal biases in while accessing the akashic records.
Bernardo GA
Jedi
Apollo what eje said.
I had this written:
I would love for you to take the plunge.
For now don't worry too much about the right amount, because that's something that can vary a lot for one person or another.
That, you will regulate yourself along the way.
In my case, for example, I have been smoking for about 35 years. During the first 10 years as a smoker, I smoked a box of 20 cigarettes a day.
As I was totally affected by the propaganda, I tried to smoke less and never succeeded. I would buy small boxes of 10, and smoke 2 of those a day.
Then, due to economic difficulties, I switched to roll-your-own tobacco, and it was the best thing that ever happened to me as a smoker.
I stopped liking the packaged cigarettes, and that rejection remains to this day.
I feel like telling funny things about my fortunately failed attempts to quit smoking, but that would be for another thread.
Tuulikki, I'd say give it a try, and see if the tobacco smoking modality is right for you, or if some other method would be better in your case.
I wish you the best of luck with that.
Just get a vape and vape nicotine.
Bernardo GA
Jedi
I just realized that I misspelled the word “support”.
I spelled it with ll instead of y.
Then, the automatic translator interpreted it as the proper name Apollo, and it was a meaningless sentence.
What I meant to say is: “I support what eje said.”
In other words, I was echoing what eje said.
I don't think I can correct that mistake in the publication anymore.
I feel childish to be clearing up this possible silliness, while at the same time trying not to make noise.
I apologize for that.
On topic, I also join Joe's recommendations.
Bernardo GA
Jedi
PS.
What Don Cesar said is also very true.
What Don Cesar said is also very true.
Thank you for asking the question, and for the session!
Here's the thread about it with all the background information. The answer from the C's is very interesting!
Apparently the disease has been present in the region for 9 years. But the growth of people with symptoms has been sporadic and with "dormant" periods, that's why the possibility of it being caused by a prion was considered, but since then disproved.
But if it can be spread by ticks, it makes sense if the bioweapon is similar to Lyme disease (borrelia bacteria). Lyme can be dormant in the body for years. But what are other means by which the bioweapon can spread?
As of 2024 around 500 people have symptoms and 39 dies. And all of them are from the same region. It's actually very surprising that this bioweapon didn't spread much further. Ticks are transmitted from one habitat to another mainly by avian and mammalian hosts, so how come this bioweapon managed to remain in the same region for such a long time?
Two days after the "exploding pagers" I had a dream. I was sitting in some cafe when I saw that an appartment on the first floor across the street was on fire. There were a lot of people around me, but no one noticed it. I went outside and tried to figure out what street it was in order to call the firefighters. It was a big fire and getting bigger and bigger, so I was sure that someone already called for help, but nothing was happening. As dreams go, I had trouble finding out what street it was. After some running around I saw a street name in Hebrew, so it was probably Israel in the dream. The fire was getting larger, and there was still no reaction. And that was it.
I usually don't have dreams like that, so that was strange. Probably this is how my brain interpreted the events and the escalation in the region.
What is also interesting that the "exploding pagers" happened on the moon eclipse, and Rosh ha Shana (Jewish New year) was on the solar eclipse this year.
I listened to a video in Russian about astrological forcast for the next period. And apparently right now there is a period of an accumulating pressure, and it's not possible to release this pressure.
There is an increasing pressure for change, but the progress is stunted. And the astrologer in the video says that the potential or the request for change is brewing under the surface, and leading to or around the full moon (17th of October) "an uncontrolled explosion" may oocure. All the accumulated pressure may come to the surface in the form of unexpected events, aggressive actions, etc.
Astrology is not something cut in stone, of course, but can be a predictor of possible energies or patterns. So considering what the C's said, it would be interesting to see how and if it correlates with what astrologists say. Will see how it will manifest itself.
Last edited:
dani
Padawan Learner
FYI American Spirit uses organic tobacco, but they are not additive free. They still contain chemicals so I would stay away from that brand. I see you roll your own tobacco cigarettes, which is the healthiest way to smoke if you’re using organic tobacco.
I have not been able to find any over the counter brands in the United States that do not contain chemicals personally. The Cs mention moderation because everything about our health requires balance. Too much of a good thing can be just as bad as not consuming enough.
FYI American Spirit uses organic tobacco, but they are not additive free. They still contain chemicals so I would stay away from that brand. I see you roll your own tobacco cigarettes, which is the healthiest way to smoke if you’re using organic tobacco.
You can always order bulk tobacco leaves from Leaf Only, then shred your own (need to buy a tobacco shredder, too). Shredding takes a bit of time, but nothing that can't be done while watching a movie or something. Leaf Only is a lot cheaper than just about anything else I've found anywhere. I think it's about 90% less expensive than store bought American Spirits here in Canada.
Christophe said:
Thank you for a great session! The discussion between yourselves and forums members first and crunching all this information into smaller blocks must have been quite draining.
Ark's question, that led to the answer of 'Pranalytical' made me think of the fundamental difference between when you learn your native language as a child, and how you learn any additional ones later on. This seems to be a feature that can be applied not only to mathematics and languages but to maybe think at large, in all domains and areas of cognition.
Any comments would be greatly appreciated :)
Bernardo GA said:
I find it very interesting, because the C's have said that Mathematics is the true universal language.
And you are raising curiosities
that occur in the question of languages, and languages have to do with language.
I have always wondered what kind of mathematics would be the universal language.
That's why I found so interesting the possible linkage that this “Pranalytical” mathematics might have with universal language.
There may be some very interesting things to discover in this matter.
As usual, Ark's questions were a real treasure.
Q: (L) Okay, let's kick into a couple of our questions here. The first one is: Who were the Sumerians?
A: Study mathematics.
Q: (L) Study mathematics? Is that the answer?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Who should study mathematics?
A: You.
Q: (L) Is there something about mathematics that will tell me who they were?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Well, I have read about the Sumerians, and I have read the Sitchin material..
A: We are not Sitchin!
Q: (L) How did the Sumerians produce their civilization so suddenly and completely, seemingly out of nowhere?
A: Study mathematics for all possible unanswered pieces of the puzzle!!! Interpolate and use appropriate computer program, learning now increases your power tenfold, when you use some initiative, rather than asking us for all the answers directly!!!
[...]
A: Logic is subjective.
Q: (L) Is symbolic logic as is used in mathematics subjective?
A: No.
Session 23 November 1996:
Q: (A) Which branch of physics is closest to understanding of inter-density communications?
A: Theoretical.
Q: (A) Which branch of mathematics?
A: Two of them: calculus and algebra.
And Finally:
Session 30 November 1996:
Q: (L) Okay, crop circles are a language, so to speak. Are they in some way related to mathematics?
A: Mathematics is the one and only true universal language.
A: Consciousness of God for lack of a precise term.
Q: (Joe) Now Arky you have to ask the question: Where is consciousness of God - or anybody?
(Chu) And why can't it be a field?
(Ark) Because it has nothing to do with space. It's not located to space.
(L) Right. A field is in space.
(Ark) It has to have something to do with space. Okay? Now, but consciousness, what is it? I don't know. I know the meaning of the word, but there are thousands of views about what consciousness is. Can you kind of make it closer for a physicist?
A: This is unfortunately, where words break down.
Q: (Ark) Okay? Words break down. Maybe mathematical formulas will help?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) You suggest some part of mathematics. Can you?
A: Pranalytical.
Perhaps Leibniz was in reality searching for the pranalytical mathematics the C's were referring to above.
Thank you for a great session! The discussion between yourselves and forums members first and crunching all this information into smaller blocks must have been quite draining.
Ark's question, that led to the answer of 'Pranalytical' made me think of the fundamental difference between when you learn your native language as a child, and how you learn any additional ones later on. This seems to be a feature that can be applied not only to mathematics and languages but to maybe think at large, in all domains and areas of cognition.
Any comments would be greatly appreciated :)
Bernardo GA said:
I find it very interesting, because the C's have said that Mathematics is the true universal language.
And you are raising curiosities
that occur in the question of languages, and languages have to do with language.
I have always wondered what kind of mathematics would be the universal language.
That's why I found so interesting the possible linkage that this “Pranalytical” mathematics might have with universal language.
There may be some very interesting things to discover in this matter.
As usual, Ark's questions were a real treasure.
I posted comments on the thread for the session dated 23 September 2023 which might have some bearing on this matter - see Session 23 September 2023. I quote below the relevant passage from my post:
In Dr Joseph Farrell's book Thrice Great Hermetica and the Janus Age, in which he took a close look at the influence of the Knights Templar on the Renaissance, Farrell considered the magical alchemy contained in music. This included a lengthy discussion of the role of mathematics in understanding music and the creation of the Platonic musical scale (which ultimately links with Pythagoras's notion of the Music of the Spheres). Farrell noted that when looking at Hermetic systems - be they alchemy, Kabbalah, astrology or mathematical magic etc. - you can detect a hidden, secret and lost knowledge transmitted, but only partially, from High Antiquity (i.e., Atlantis). He develops this finding by pointing out that the three prime movers of mathematics during the Early Enlightenment: Descartes, Newton (a closet alchemist) and Liebniz, all new something of the secret or esoteric tradition. For those who are not aware, Descartes invented analytical geometry, whilst Newton and Liebniz jointly invented modern calculus, mathematical tools we still use today. However, it was Descartes who first recognised that the old geometers (Plato, Euclid etc.) may have made use of a kind of analysis, which they extended to the solution of all problems, albeit they hid it from posterity (thus fitting the hermetic view of lost and secret knowledge). Descartes went on to say that he suspected the ancients possessed some kind of algebraic notation for this mathematics , which was a kind of analysis capable of expressing solutions to all problems. It is interesting that the C's may have been given us hints to this effect in the transcripts:
Session 7 May 1995:In Dr Joseph Farrell's book Thrice Great Hermetica and the Janus Age, in which he took a close look at the influence of the Knights Templar on the Renaissance, Farrell considered the magical alchemy contained in music. This included a lengthy discussion of the role of mathematics in understanding music and the creation of the Platonic musical scale (which ultimately links with Pythagoras's notion of the Music of the Spheres). Farrell noted that when looking at Hermetic systems - be they alchemy, Kabbalah, astrology or mathematical magic etc. - you can detect a hidden, secret and lost knowledge transmitted, but only partially, from High Antiquity (i.e., Atlantis). He develops this finding by pointing out that the three prime movers of mathematics during the Early Enlightenment: Descartes, Newton (a closet alchemist) and Liebniz, all new something of the secret or esoteric tradition. For those who are not aware, Descartes invented analytical geometry, whilst Newton and Liebniz jointly invented modern calculus, mathematical tools we still use today. However, it was Descartes who first recognised that the old geometers (Plato, Euclid etc.) may have made use of a kind of analysis, which they extended to the solution of all problems, albeit they hid it from posterity (thus fitting the hermetic view of lost and secret knowledge). Descartes went on to say that he suspected the ancients possessed some kind of algebraic notation for this mathematics , which was a kind of analysis capable of expressing solutions to all problems. It is interesting that the C's may have been given us hints to this effect in the transcripts:
Q: (L) Okay, let's kick into a couple of our questions here. The first one is: Who were the Sumerians?
A: Study mathematics.
Q: (L) Study mathematics? Is that the answer?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Who should study mathematics?
A: You.
Q: (L) Is there something about mathematics that will tell me who they were?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Well, I have read about the Sumerians, and I have read the Sitchin material..
A: We are not Sitchin!
Q: (L) How did the Sumerians produce their civilization so suddenly and completely, seemingly out of nowhere?
A: Study mathematics for all possible unanswered pieces of the puzzle!!! Interpolate and use appropriate computer program, learning now increases your power tenfold, when you use some initiative, rather than asking us for all the answers directly!!!
[...]
A: Logic is subjective.
Q: (L) Is symbolic logic as is used in mathematics subjective?
A: No.
Session 23 November 1996:
Q: (A) Which branch of physics is closest to understanding of inter-density communications?
A: Theoretical.
Q: (A) Which branch of mathematics?
A: Two of them: calculus and algebra.
And Finally:
Session 30 November 1996:
Q: (L) Okay, crop circles are a language, so to speak. Are they in some way related to mathematics?
A: Mathematics is the one and only true universal language.
Subsequently, Newton would also detect the presence of a form of mathematical analysis in ancient texts that had been concealed or "occulted". However, it was Leibniz who would exceed the other two in his grasp of what that lost analysis of the ancients might have entailed. In their works, he felt he could detect vestiges of it, namely of an algebra in which numbers are not the issue. Thus, for Leibniz, it was a kind of imitation of calculation. Having invented calculus, Leibniz could see a kind of mathematical analysis that went far beyond what he had already invented. Leibniz made known in his writings that he was searching for what he called a characteristic universalis (a universal symbol or expression or language), which was a kind of meta-calculus or formal language that would translate any other kind of mathematics or even natural languages. This appears to accord with what the C's meant by "Mathematics is the one and only true universal language". Farrell thinks Leibniz may have been aware of the Topological Metaphor but since Topology had not been invented yet, he called it analysis situs or analysis of the situation. Farrell thinks that Leibniz understood the analogical nature of the Metaphor and was trying directly to symbolise it, to give it formal rules and properties and hence came up with the idea of what he called characteristic universalis. Thus, like Descartes and Newton, Leibniz firmly believed that there was a technique of analysis that had either been lost in ancient times or deliberately suppressed. However, what is unique to Leibniz was that he believed that this analysis may not have been numerical at all.
What Farrell believes Liebniz was suggesting was that this universal "meta-calculus" was a a formal language that incorporated normal arithmetical calculation as a sub-set of its formal procedures, but which is also capable of manipulating highly abstract and non-calculable concepts, and this, of course, implies that he understood that there was a method of manipulating and permuting information, of processing information of all kinds formally. For Farrell this implies analogy and a fundamentally alchemical point of view of endless permutations as the generative creative engines of that processing (which makes me think of algorithms and the holographic universe, or the universe is a simulation, theory). This thinking therefore connects with the concept of a living, dynamic aether (as per James Clarke Maxwell) or prima materia, or what we today would call the zero point energy field or information field, in which all possible permutations may be found.
This mention of the "information field" takes us back to what Ark discussed with the C's in this session:
(Ark) Okay, I expected that but now question is, I am thinking: I use the term information field, but 'field' is something that is, when I say temperature field, it means temperature here, temperature there, and so on. Electromagnetic field, it's in space. But I don't think that 'information field' is a good term. It's like 'information' what - space? And what is it, how to describe it, where this information is, what kind of an animal it is?What Farrell believes Liebniz was suggesting was that this universal "meta-calculus" was a a formal language that incorporated normal arithmetical calculation as a sub-set of its formal procedures, but which is also capable of manipulating highly abstract and non-calculable concepts, and this, of course, implies that he understood that there was a method of manipulating and permuting information, of processing information of all kinds formally. For Farrell this implies analogy and a fundamentally alchemical point of view of endless permutations as the generative creative engines of that processing (which makes me think of algorithms and the holographic universe, or the universe is a simulation, theory). This thinking therefore connects with the concept of a living, dynamic aether (as per James Clarke Maxwell) or prima materia, or what we today would call the zero point energy field or information field, in which all possible permutations may be found.
This mention of the "information field" takes us back to what Ark discussed with the C's in this session:
A: Consciousness of God for lack of a precise term.
Q: (Joe) Now Arky you have to ask the question: Where is consciousness of God - or anybody?
(Chu) And why can't it be a field?
(Ark) Because it has nothing to do with space. It's not located to space.
(L) Right. A field is in space.
(Ark) It has to have something to do with space. Okay? Now, but consciousness, what is it? I don't know. I know the meaning of the word, but there are thousands of views about what consciousness is. Can you kind of make it closer for a physicist?
A: This is unfortunately, where words break down.
Q: (Ark) Okay? Words break down. Maybe mathematical formulas will help?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) You suggest some part of mathematics. Can you?
A: Pranalytical.
Perhaps Leibniz was in reality searching for the pranalytical mathematics the C's were referring to above.
Franck-alexandre
Padawan Learner
Thanks for sharing, it's great.
