wordfailure

How disappointing to finally hear from the universe only to find it self-serving and small-minded. I always imagined it to be, I don't know... larger than life? "Bug bear"? I almost expect God to post now (vicariously of course). If He does, I hope he doesn't say something like "Stop being so poopy!"

malai5

Dear John Page.

1) ''Agreed'', So why do you keep asking us to ''convince'' you, give you evidence. You must want to prove a point. ''Upstairs'' must be right, if that wasn't a surprise.

2) Still ''need'' to be right, surely a very ''little'' self part of the ''mind'' you obviously have.

3) Nice to see that you at least recognise that we ''could'' be genuine, serious in what we do and are.
We are not out to convince you, we just give you some of our validations, our proofs for us. We would not put out the material if we were not and had not been totally convinced we were dealing with entities of the highest integrity and intelligence.

4) So if there is nothing to prove wrong, you must agree with the information and philosopical understanding of the universe we post, you can't have it both ways.

5) If you read and really understood our articles, you would see a direct correlation to 3D ''reality'' and that is, it is 180 degrees out of sync with the universal reality. Could be the reason this 3D world is so screwed up.

6) No John, not Malai. But entities that know you intimately, whether you believe it or not.

7) ''Lord Almighty'', in this case a figure of speech with hands raised up in despair, but again, seeing you with a ''mind'', but not using it to anyway near to it's potential.

8) John, the articles stand on their own, step back and take a look without your history to guide you.

9) John, we beg to differ, our view is priviledged and you were doubly so by getting a writing directed to you that, if you take it on board, can be a valuable insight and lesson for you.

10) We do not ''appeal'' to 3D logic, it is your perception that we do. We use universal ''logic'', it's just that you don't see it as such.

11) Malai did not ''write'' what you were given, but those entities that are of the universal mind did.

Over to you.

Cheers.

Malai5.

malai5

Dear wordfailure.

Just what do you think that message to John was all about?
It was couched in terms that reflected the way he was acting. Yes, self serving, yes small minded. All the traits of a ''little'' self.

What do you think G.O.D. would sound like, if you were spoken to by it? It would be in words you were familiar with, otherwise you would not understand. And we will tell you something else, if G.O.D. wanted to get the message across to you and the only way you would understand was to say, ''Stop being so poopy'', thats what would be said.

We think you have a strange idea of what communication in the universe entails. If the highest of intelligent entities in the universe want to say something to you, they will say it in words you can understand, vernacular, slang, swearing, you name it they will use it, because they will know you intimately and know what you will respond to. This we know from personal experience.

Cheers.

Malai5.

John Page

You're the one making the claims, if you want me to consider them I'm asking for evidence.
Do you have a problem with self preservation through sanity rather than mystical delusions? How can I differentiate between what you're saying and mystical delusions?
...in that case you're not failing!
I think you're ideas are screwed up - reality is just fine whether its 3D or 36D thank you.
How so? Because you hear voices? Because you think you know?
Not the booger man again!! Do you practise juju in your spare time?
Challenge: My logic is more universal than yours. Let's debate. What are the axioms of your system of logic?
The "universal mind" is a hypothetical but non-existant entity.

Cheers, john

wordfailure

That's all very convenient, but I don't see a correlation between John's actions and the language of the message you were kind enough to quote from the universe. Perhaps you could point it out? What could you possibly see as self-serving, for example, in a refusal to accept your claim, which is but one of thousands and thousands of such claims to privileged mystical knowledge, exclusively on the strength of your assurances? The obvious correlation is with your statements and claims. The universe speaks in your voice. Not surprising, of course. It is, after all, your projection of a parental consciousness upon the universe. It would have been impressive, in a parlor trick sort of way, had you in fact been able to make the universe speak in John's voice.

It's difficult to take this all seriously. It has the feel of a ruse. But benefit-of-doubt is cheap. I find all such mystical/religious claims to be small-minded. Ironically the mystic always charges that the materialist view is too limited. The universe is unimaginably, incomprehensibly large and complex (obviously). Representations sufficiently small to fit in our brains are painfully inadequate, particularly when we insist on taking up some of the space with overlayed imagined human attributes to everything. No personal offense intended.

malai5

Dear wordfailure.

Firstly, we don't expect you, or anyone to accept our claims.
We cannot ''make'' you see what we ''see'', or know, would that we could for your perception of the whole subject of the ''unknown'' would be less mysterious.
All that we ask is for a fair hearing and an unbiased view as to the inherent ''logic'' that the information puts forth.

The ''writing'' that we requested for John, we did not know before hand what would be said to him.
We also give to all the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind the debates. It was as much a surprise to us that the information detailed motives that were not really related to the debate and were indeed ''small minded'', ''ego'' driven.
We, as the 3 people who research and bring through the material, have never, nor would ever assume that the motives of those we engage in debate with are anything but honorable, but that is where we come from, so we tend to see this in others. We are not naive, but we do like to feel there is somewhat of a level playing field here.

Any way back to the point of the issue.
The point is, that points of view have and will be limited if only relient upon the known. If the world had adopted that view, there would have never been the incentive to look beyond the physically ''seen'' and we know the advances that were brought by the humble microscope in the area of the physical sciences. The physical sciences has also been beset with ''humbug'' along with the truth.
The area of the ''Metaphysical'' has had more than it's share of the mystical ''mumbo jumbo'' and for this we can point the finger firmly in the direction of the religions, capitalising on the human fear of the ''unknown''. The area of Metaphysics is no different to the physical sciences in that a measured approach must be adopted to sort the mystique from the real.
There are many serious researchers in many august institutions as well as those such as ourselves who use the ''tools'', our abilities in such a way to separate the ''little'' self subjective from the ''bigger'' self objective information.
We understand only too well the traps and pitfalls the subjective delusions of the impure connection provides. This is the major obstruction to overcome. To overcome this, we have changed our lives, our perceptions, of ourselves by stringent examination of ourselves and the constant confrontation of each other to change our conditioning. It's a hard road, as one must become someone that initially is a stranger to you. It gets easier as one goes on for we know that there is no way back. We are changed forever.

We know, what we are, 5D people in a 3D world. Universally orientated, not 3D oriented.
To do what we do, it has been necessary for us to be and think in alignment with the universal contacts, to be clear channels.
This is not a game for us, it is serious, it is our life and it is REAL, no petty delusion, for we have had to work to get where we are, not just have an all encompassing belief. Belief alone will not get you there, for that will just give one what the bulk of the ''new age'', ''pink bubble'' crowd have, another belief system, another religion, more mystical ''mumbo jumbo''.

So, when we ask for information about a situation, or a person, the information is sourced from a pure source, that does have all the information, all the answers, but has it's own agenda, not ours. We are merely the receivers, but trained receivers who are conversant with the way of the universe and the entities we work with.

We take no personal offence, for we understand that in all areas of endevour, especially where there is fear and ignorance, there is a tendency to ''tar'' all with the ''brush'' of the lowest common denomenator and this is a very human trait.

Cheers.

Malai5.

malai5

Dear John Page.

Please excuse our delay.

Universal Logic:-

1) Universally, ''worlds'' are hologramatical. They are energy ''constructions''. Programs, if you like.
2) ''Thinking'' is an attribute of the ''little'' self ''mind''. It is subjective to the survival/lesson learning process of a 3D world.
3) ''Thought'' of the ''higher''self ''mind'' is of the ''objective'' cognitive/inspirational/intuitive, not gained from 3D learning and historic processes. This ''thought'' is not of the survival, but of the evolutionary/progressive variety. This is the ''control''/guidence that helps keep your lessons to the minium required by your ''contract'' for your life.
4) You have a contracted life, which sets out the major ''waypoints'' and gives you your ''band'' of ''choices'', your free will.
5) The logic of your existence is not related to the 3D learned processes, they are a byproduct of the world you are in. To learn to harness your cognitive/intuitive ability to gain objective insights which will give you answers where there are none in subjective ''thinking'' is the way one can best benefit oneself and the world in general. Make a contribution, fufill your contract.
6) Universal logic uses the co-operative maxim, not the competitive.
7) Universal logic does not use absolutes, or frames of reference.
8) Universal logic makes no judgements, just assesses as the ''game'' is a ''running'' one.
9) Universal operates by cause and effect.
10) Universal logic does not presume.
11) Universal logic does not expect.
12) Universal logic does not include ''time lines''.
13) Universal logic is an acceptance of the responsibility of ''self''.
14) Universal logic is the acceptance of constant change and growth.
15) Universal logic is the acceptance of equality.
16) Universal logic is devoid of ego.
17) Universal logic is not prejudiced.
18) Universal logic allows for all to grow, does not place limitations or parameters, this is left to the individual in each particular life, the contract.
19) Universal logic has nothing in common with 3D logic.
20) Universal logic is the logic of the advanced worlds of the multiverses.

Cheers.

Malai5.

John Page

...then, for about the fourth time of asking, please explain the cause and effect involved in you knowing what it is you think you know!!

Without such an explanation there seems little assurance that your claims have any substance and, indeed, your claims are inconsistent with the "universal logic" you have set forth.

Cheers, John

Amos

Hello John, sorry for jumping in here without reading the preceding posts but just being aware of our own consciousness is required to understand the cause of our own knowledge. No thinking is required because the perception of this moment is already based on the cause and effect of our knowledge. Is that not what omniscience is all about? (this contradicts the common idea that omniscience is like a large databank).

Some people would say that life/nature is in a state of flux and to understand nature we must be part of this changing world. I think in Buddhism life is like a river and may even be the river of life we wish to become and integral part of (as opposed to fight against or try to cross).

John Page

Hi Amos!

Sorry but I don't understand. Are you saying consciousness causes knowledge? How do you know this and how is this caused?

Cheers, John