brooklyn_born

Unfortunately, I have not had any significant time to listen to the broadcasts. However, in a few more weeks I will have the summer months to play with :-) I am looking forward to catching up on his lessons! BB

Awesome find, Scott! I noticed that you have been cross-referencing excerpts from Ubook and other writings. Is this your research or Chris has revealed these findings on his show (I have not tuned in, in a while)? Making the connection between Elves and Midwayers adds much more texture to the latter's narrative. It is good to see everyone. After the third week of May, I will have a few months of time to spare. Looking forward to building with the community again BB

I have since digressed from posting to the board if you have not noticed yet, but I do read the posts from time to time. I have had some changes in my life that consume much of my free time. It is all good though, after all, the internet is not the real world, anyhow! I feel compelled to chime in on this topic. I do not believe that posting to boards is the fulfillment of cosmic love as portrayed in Ubook, unless it is used to communicate some project plan literally that contributes to the advancement of society in real time (e.g., getting together to feed the homeless, work at a shelter, protest unnecessary war, fight crime, etc.). However, what I have observed is participants, including myself, using the board to espouse a particular interpretation, or ideology for that matter, of Ubook; sometimes it is embraced and welcomed, and sometimes met with fierce resistance. That, to me, comes across more dogmatic than anything else. Still I don't think there is anything wrong with that kind of usage, but call it what it is. This board is no different, to me, than other religious boards of which I was a member. Again, that is not to say it is a bad thing, but call it what it is. Until I get some free time on my hand to participate like I used to, I bid you all farewell in love and peace! BB

Well stated, foV, and thanks! :-)

I thought the board might find this interesting as the date lands us somewhere before the Satania rebellion (not sure, can't recall). http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23240-the-father-of-all-men-is-340000-years-old.html

Indeed, Rick, I do recall a passage in TUB which tells us that midwayers and some other personalities raise the candidate for fusion over the ground.

Thought I'd share this article with the forum. http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/02/19/sheriff-man-who-died-in-fire-may-have-spontaneously-combusted/

Without sounding redundant (im sure I am lol) it goes back to my original premise, that is, some of these revelations, specifically the higher celestial ones, are distorted. Existential implies out of time, according to TUB. Yet it is handicapped by language and as a consequence uses time to define it. I would be cautious to swear by its literal interpretation. I would prefer to interpolate that revelation. Here is what the Revelators say (emphasis in bold-font): 0:0.2 It is exceedingly difficult to present enlarged concepts and advanced truth, in our endeavor to expand cosmic consciousness and enhance spiritual perception, when we are restricted to the use of a circumscribed language of the realm. But our mandate admonishes us to make every effort to convey our meanings by using the word symbols of the English tongue. We have been instructed to introduce new terms only when the concept to be portrayed finds no terminology in English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning. BB

Well you did couple eternal and existential in an earlier posting, so your logic is consistent. I see your point, though I disagree, yet it has 'rhyme and reason.' BB

Bonita, I am not disagreeing with "the obvious." I am disagreeing with YOUR claim about the obvious. ? That is your opinion, Bonita. Sorry but I do not agree. So we shall agree to disagree on this issue. I am very much aware of that. At the same time I am aware that it uses existing terms without breaking with their definition. The reference you posted was not an opinion, but your claim/interpretation on it was, IMO. Bonita, here is the deal... Reject all that I posited. We can avoid the back-and-forth. It is obvious your mind is settled on this. So I won't entertain to convince you how I see it. Peace. BB

What you pointed out was your opinion, Bonita, and I did not agree with it. So to answer your question, No, I did not miss what you said. I will leave you with the following: 0:0.2 It is exceedingly difficult to present enlarged concepts and advanced truth, in our endeavor to expand cosmic consciousness and enhance spiritual perception, when we are restricted to the use of a circumscribed language of the realm. But our mandate admonishes us to make every effort to convey our meanings by using the word symbols of the English tongue. We have been instructed to introduce new terms only when the concept to be portrayed finds no terminology in English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning. "EXISTENTIAL" is not a new term. BB

I would never say someone's take on UB is kooky --different, but not kooky. I agree, though, that each individual takes away from their reading something unique or personalized (TA influence?). IMO, we will all come short of truly capturing that pristine, unadulterated meaning or image of those worlds beyond time-space. With that being said, allow me constructively to critique one of your points. You say, "They always were, always are, and always will be." Do you notice that you use verbs which denote 'time' to describe beings that are not time based? This is an example of what I mean by the handicap of human language to describe ineffable gods. Here is where it gets a little more interesting... You state that these gods have no beginning or end. Again, notice how we are handicapped at expressing an idea by resorting to contrasting what it is not. Let us be frank, if we do not have the tools (language) to describe something then it DOES NOT EXIST (we cannot describe it is what I mean)... that is, until we develop a direct relationship with such reality and are able to express it with language, adequately. We could use basic understanding of numbers or math to conceptualize this idea. Does zero exist? No. Yet we use notation, ie., digit, to express this idea or "number." Ask yourself, how can one have zero numbers? That example is no different from the Revelators deploying the English language to frame a concept outside time-space within time-space. BB

Without taking a position as to whether I agree or disagree, would you admit that the definition you present is your innovation? Also, do you think when the Revelators chose that word to describe the Paradise Deities, they meant to employ the definition humans established for it? Here is the definition of existential: ex·is·ten·tial [eg-zi-sten-shuhl, ek-si-] adjective 1. pertaining to existence.

The following explains my point more or less. And it explains indirectly why hardly you will find uniformity of understanding of Ubook among its readers. This thread is a prime example, beside many others. A few things with which UB readers must come to grips: The God or Divinity revelations are anthropomorphic in nature. It took me a number of months to finally accept that fact. Second, every individual reader will bring to the table a personalized (Thought Adjuster influence) understanding of the papers, which further complicates achieving a uniform understanding. The Christian Church went through this problem in its early stages of development. The leaders of the faith had to use an iron fist and heavy handed tactics, to get everyone on the same page, and accept "their" point of view as it relates to the Bible. I hope UB never goes down that road! UB revelations are conveyed through human language. The normal case is one reads these revelations while adhering to language rules; or one comes to understand a revelation by a strict, literal reading of the text. However, there are truths in revelations that transcend what is captured or apparent in a sentence. How does one gain access to such if bound to language rules? The process of mortal ascension is not far removed from how one reads texts which purpose to convey cosmic truth. Just as the body is built up with inertia we must overcome for fusion, so too, language has built in inertia which makes it more difficult to glean transcendental information contained therein, yet must be overcome (think out the box!) Here are the Revelator's thoughts on deploying language to minister revelation: 0:0.2 It is exceedingly difficult to present enlarged concepts and advanced truth, in our endeavor to expand cosmic consciousness and enhance spiritual perception, when we are restricted to the use of a circumscribed language of the realm. But our mandate admonishes us to make every effort to convey our meanings by using the word symbols of the English tongue. We have been instructed to introduce new terms only when the concept to be portrayed finds no terminology in English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning.

Yes we have a beginning and an end, "relative" to someone, but not ourselves. No human can attest to his/her own beginning or end. It is impossible. But every human can attest to their existence. Get it? Let us try it this way. Bonita, conclusively you could tell yourself that you exist. Right? but can you bear witness to your birth? NO. Can you bear witness to your death? No. Get it? The concept, Existential, is a human one. It is not truly divine. As I said previously, pretty much all that we have in Ubook are human concepts attempting to reflect ideas that do not have human origin. It is sort of like using a dog to describe what a cat looks like. Very crude. Very handicapped. BB