Update Assistance Pills

**Aianawa** · 10th November 2019, 20:25

Many people jumping on the know thyself stream of late and inner work may lead to outer work plus some questions I am seeing show simple rabbit hole issues so felt to share a couple of old pills > which may help or not.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PgX8l9AgzE

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eifUePBmJOg

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46XrEeEg5CQ

Ps I ha a chuckle when someone recently said to me > Femenko's work is disregarded by mainstream scientests.

**sourcetruth** · 10th November 2019, 20:30

These videos are very interesting, I am familiar with them and they present a very compelling picture about our existence. It matches with other material that I have watched.

**sourcetruth** · 10th November 2019, 20:35

Originally posted by Aianawa

Ps I ha a chuckle when someone recently said to me > Femenko's work is disregarded by mainstream scientests.

I was just repeating what the wikipedia article that you linked to was stating clearly.

**Malisa** · 11th November 2019, 01:59

Originally posted by sourcetruth

I was just repeating what the wikipedia article that you linked to was stating clearly.

This is why i tell you that you have to add your own thoughts/ideas when posting about something like that.

If you don't clarify your own stance on it then it can be assumed you made that exact quote because that's what you think about Femenko as well. It is not clear if you do or do not agree with that quote. Just unnecessary confusion

**sourcetruth** · 11th November 2019, 02:07

Originally posted by Malisa

This is why i tell you that you have to add your own thoughts/ideas when posting about something like that.

If you don't clarify your own stance on it then it can be assumed you made that exact quote because that's what you think about Femenko as well. It is not clear if you do or do not agree with that quote. Just unnecessary confusion

This is my post was in response to Aianawana:

This work is rejected and considered to be pseudohistorical by mainstream historians, according to the wikipedia article.

I made it clear that I was referencing the wikipedia article for this statement.

My position is clear from the fact that I pointed that out specifically, it is clear that I am taking a skeptical stance on Femenko.

**Malisa** · 11th November 2019, 02:16

Originally posted by Aianawa

Many people jumping on the know thyself stream of late and inner work may lead to outer work plus some questions I am seeing show simple rabbit hole issues so felt to share a couple of old pills > which may help or not.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PgX8l9AgzE

C / sea / see

That only applies if you are speaking English

In Russia, the C letter sounds like the English S

In Spanish, C sounds like "se", like in section

sea is "more" in Russian, and mar in Spanish

English wasn't a language in the same way as it is these days, so how do you reconcile the fact that English didn't even exist back then, and that these interpretations only work if you speak English? It doesn't work for any other language i know

And "templar" in modern Spanish means "temper" not "key", i'm not sure if this is in reference to the Templars but wasn't Templar in that context meant "From the Temple" or something like that?

I never head Templar as a translation of Key, it sounds very weird and wrong for me

Also "Adios" , didn't that come from "Vaya con Dios", "ve con Dios", "que dios te acompanie", "te encomiendo a Dios" ? basically "Go with God" and "God be with you" and not "To God", There was never a way to say "To God" that turned into "Adios" in the way it is explained on that video, it also sounds weird to me, like a forced way to make a connection because To God in Spanish is totally wrong. This sounds like a literal translation from English into Spanish and that's not how it works. Unless i'm missing something here?

What do you think of this?

**Malisa** · 11th November 2019, 02:25

Originally posted by sourcetruth

This is my post was in response to Aianawana:

I made it clear that I was referencing the wikipedia article for this statement.

My position is clear from the fact that I pointed that out specifically, it is clear that I am taking a skeptical stance on Femenko.

No it isn't, it is for you but not for people reading what you wrote

You can post that quote and say "according to the wikipedia article.", then you basically said "the author of the wikipedia article believes this and i'm referencing him" but you never said ' I'm referencing because i believe the same', or maybe 'i'm referencing that article because i would like to know what you think of this particular quote'

But anyways, have you read Femenko's work? It's quite extensive and requires you to also know the official history so you can compare, it requires lots of dedication and research, so i don't think you can just say i agree with the wiki article because you can't have the context of what's being discussed unless you spend a year or two going through the entire work of Fomenko

I haven't read his work beyond a couple things here are there, i would have to stop all my current life or dedicate years of my life to read what he wrote then compare to the other side of written history, it could take decades even

Point being, you did not really clarify your position on your first reply with the wiki quote. What you think you communicate often times is not what other people get from reading your words

P.S.

Sorry Aianawa, this is completely off topic now :/

**sourcetruth** · 11th November 2019, 02:36

Originally posted by Malisa

No it isn't, it is for you but not for people reading what you wrote

You can post that quote and say "according to the wikipedia article.", then you basically said "the author of the wikipedia article believes this and i'm referencing him" but you never said ' I'm referencing because i believe the same', or maybe 'i'm referencing that article because i would like to know what you think of this particular quote'

But anyways, have you read Femenko's work? It's quite extensive and requires you to also know the official history so you can compare, it requires lots of dedication and research, so i don't think you can just say i agree with the wiki article because you can't have the context of what's being discussed unless you spend a year or two going through the entire work of Fomenko

I haven't read his work beyond a couple things here are there, i would have to stop all my current life or dedicate years of my life to read what he wrote then compare to the other side of written history, it could take decades even

Point being, you did not really clarify your position on your first reply with the wiki quote. What you think you communicate often times is not what other people get from reading your words

P.S.

Sorry Aianawa, this is completely off topic now :/

I am showing that I am being skeptical by pointing out that his work is rejected by mainstream historians and is considered pseudohistorical.
I was referencing the wikipedia article to show that his work is rejected by mainstream historians, which the wikipedia article has annotations to that are supposed to demonstrate this.
It is clear that I was skeptical by pointing this out, no clarification needed.

I have read a little of his book a long time ago, but not very much. When somebody is presenting something that is at odds with a well established viewpoint in academia, and their work is rejected and considered pseudoscientific by academia, then I will be skeptical of that person's viewpoint. I am not saying that I know they are wrong, but I have reason to be skeptical when I see this occuring.

**Malisa** · 11th November 2019, 02:44

Originally posted by sourcetruth

I don't have to say that I am skeptical, I am showing it by pointing out that his work is rejected by mainstream historians and is considered pseudohistorical.
I have read a little of his book a long time ago, but not very much. When somebody is presenting something that is at odds with a well established viewpoint in academia, and their work is rejected and considered pseudoscientific by academia, then I will be skeptical of that person's viewpoint. I am not saying that I know they are wrong, but I have reason to be skeptical when I see this occuring.

You do have to say it source kun, leave no room for interpretation, that's the best and most scientific way of discussing a complex topic

Don't expect people to try to read your intentions of what's behind your words, just be clear and plain and a lot of unnecessary back and forth can be avoided

When somebody is presenting something that is at odds with a well established viewpoint in academia, and their work is rejected and considered pseudoscientific by academia, then I will be skeptical of that person's viewpoint.

Do you realise this goes completely against what you were saying before all along, in our other conversations? You said that we rejected you because you were going against the established viewpoint of some specific areas. This is completely reversing your position. (you were against "the grain" and that's why you were rejected in general) you said, well the "grain" is basically established academia, so you basically have said that all your previous comments and theories are to be thrown away, since they go against established academia and are "considered pseudoscientific". This is problematic in how we perceive you source kun, see?

I don't think we should continue this conversation here, as it is off topic in a bad way and it's going to end up in the same old back and forth and i don't like that. Also we are disrespecting Aianawa by doing this

**sourcetruth** · 11th November 2019, 02:58

Originally posted by Malisa

I don't think we should continue this conversation here, as it is off topic in a bad way and it's going to end up in the same old back and forth and i don't like that. Also we are disrespecting Aianawa by doing this

You were the one who felt the need to tell me something about a post that I made on a different thread, when you could have posted it on that thread.
Besides, Aiawana was the one who felt the need to add the little "P.S." comment about my post at the bottom of his OP instead of responding to me on the other thread.

**Malisa** · 11th November 2019, 03:12

Originally posted by sourcetruth

You were the one who felt the need to tell me something about a post that I made on a different thread, when you could have posted it on that thread.
Besides, Aiawana was the one who felt the need to add the little "P.S." comment about my post at the bottom of his OP instead of responding to me on the other thread.

It doesn't matter, it all came from some post you made that left a lot of room for interpretation. That's all there is to it

**Aianawa** · 11th November 2019, 03:36

Indeed it was purrfect or this thread would be not.

Many watch and still know not time illusion, many listen and not here, stillness leads eventually to the outside/outer and assistorism.

Even Tolle power of now escapes into mind prison if sun blocked.

**Malisa** · 11th November 2019, 03:46

Originally posted by Aianawa

Indeed it was purrfect or this thread would be not.

Many watch and still know not time illusion, many listen and not here, stillness leads eventually to the outside/outer and assistorism.

Even Tolle power of now escapes into mind prison if sun blocked.

Could you expand on this?

Mindfulness is not something that should be affected by external things, isn't it? Doesn't mindfulness comes from within, to the outside?

I remember reading someone saying "The sun" was the direct interpretation of "the son" in the bible, and referencing Aztecs and Huitzilopochtli as proof, except that "Sun" sounds like "Son" only in English, there is an issue with looking at things only from one perspective like that. It is a broken concept to me. Because the Aztecs looked at Huitzilopochtli as a God of war, not of peace, but just because it was the God of Sun when translated to English then it becomes "The Son" people talk about in the Bible. It is broken concept

True, eternal wisdom doesn't break easily. True wisdom is the same all across human made languages

I have found a lot that people from the Americas, particularly the US, tend to attempt to make eastern philosophies fit the Western mindset, instead of them changing to align better to the actual concept, like with Zen and Buddhism. That leads to very wrong approaches, where you have to drop or change the meaning of a few things so that they fit into the current mindset, instead of changing that current mindset to fit the original teachings

**Aianawa** · 11th November 2019, 05:23

I have observed people read CWG series and/or Power of Now, then go along as before BUT seeds planted awaiting the flood then heat.

Noospheric and Rainbow Mechanics are an above below know, created within oneself only through ones collective ( Earth Poles ).

**Malisa** · 11th November 2019, 05:47

[QUOTE=Aianawa;842016489]I have observed people read CWG series and/or Power of Now, then go along as before BUT seeds planted awaiting the flood then heat.

Noospheric and Rainbow Mechanics are an above below know, created within oneself only through ones collective ( Earth Poles ).

This creates a problem for next generations who won't be living on this planet, or on any planet at all

That situation wasn't thought off when those books and thoughts were conceived