A question I was asked in bed in while in meditation. " Were not here to help you, were here to kill you." Both question and statement ' spoken ' or projected a few years back. One of the seven events I experienced, the question was asked by a male, the statement female(s?). I use the plural because the brain and that which is trained through it's life time, depending on the applications ( lessons based on sociological patterns applied ), unless the ' leap of faith ' is found within the animal thus enabling it to recognize itself within the abstract of what we as human beings distinguish as the mind, the idea of the question will never arise. The idea of the soul is pasted beyond the constraints of the observation derived from the genetic of the application(s) taught within any group of animals if it adheres to the unconscious mind ov
er a duration of replication within the species to the extent of genetic memory. The human being recognizes the neuropathways on an unconscious level as the same species, the enlightened human being acc
epts all animals wi
thin the same species in the conscience mutation as, all within the species, despite any application or form of ' programing ' as human beings. This is equality. However, if the ' enlightened ' member's of any species disregard the responsibilities due the architects and designers and of the applications then the initial ' question ' will never arise, thus in the animal world they remain. Repetition within nature have ' paths ' that can be examined and traced to a proton and smaller; some paths extinct. We are our ancestors. Will there be descendants or just animals. Nothing is guaranteed.
As a matter of a deep set conscience, my mental answer was " No, a thought can not kill."
As to the feminine projections my answer is " That remains to be seen."
Fantasies are common to the species when observed from afar. This is to be human. Can it be that animals have gained some control through aggression due the applications within the spices without due consideration of conscience? Deceit begs aggression when left unchecked. Aggression begs re
petition within deceit. An example: Within a hypnotic state left unchecked, then sleep, a woman was performing an ' oral exercise ' upon my higher image. Two smaller figures, one on ether side of her, in back. When my ' mental bodies ' task was completed, when the vision was becoming clearer yet, I thanked her. Though her face was not fully clear yet, her response was one of astonishment. She ' thought' something to the effect " He can see us! " What was said was not that important, what was when I thought about it later regarding ethic's, was the question in my mind as to the age of those behind her. Was this a lesson to please based on affection or a lesson of an application in order to obtain a desired response to maintain an objective within a program, control. But then, who am I to question women or the ethic's I was taught by women.
Human sexuality is complex. As if it wasn't, already, huh? Most especially when applied/used in the lower ( deep ) sub'conscience' mind. Remember genetic or cellular memory? I never had the chance to give adequate time to consider a response, yes or no; only the conditioned control. Always say thank you. The term the ' one hundred monkey ' effect comes to mind, so does ethics. Is this reciprocal?
AD HOC PONDERING
Last night I was while trying to clear my mind, I picked up a book that dropped to the floor. As I picked it up I noticed this graph and read it the wrong way. I thought interesting. Haven't a clue as to was to what it means, but interesting none the less. It left me with questions as to how the mess of humanity began outside the construct of religion. ( Infinity and the Mind by Rudy Rucker, © 1982, Bantam Books. )
I don't understand math that much. I might add on to the writings above later.
