malai5

Dear John Page.

Have you missed completely the point of what we have been saying. Your words, ''verifiable statement'', means, verifiable by you, or a 3D proof mechanism.
How does one ''verify'' the meditation experience, except by anecdote.
How does one ''verify'' the ''far see'er'' except by anecdote.
How does one ''verify'' the ''energy healer'' except by anecdote.
How does one ''verify'' the ''psychic'' and the information that is brought through, except by anecdote.
How does one ''varify'' the ''unexplainable'', except by anecdote.

What is anecdotal evidence? It is observable phenomena, it is observable information which is the basis for any ''scientific'' study.
Without the observable, the anecdotal, there would be no science.
What we deal with and work with is beyond the realms of traditional rationale, but it is still ''observable'' by those who can.
Much research is going on in this area, but as the forms, the methods of traditional verification are being applied, they are not up to the task, as has been found.
The methods of the 3D world, will not crack this ''nut'', but the ''observable'', the ''anecdotal'' evidence, will still be there.

John, it is a personal journey that brings one to the point of understanding and belief, because the individual IS given his/her proofs.

Cheers.

Malai5.

John Page

Have you completely missed the point of evidence that is verifiable? Your anecdotal evidence is no better than mine and I shall refrain from expressing my opinion as to your mental state.

Please answer the question, how do you know what you (anecdotally or otherwise) know? Until there is something produced in that direction your statements have the same epistemological value as a nun having visions in a cucumber patch.

malai5

Dear John Page.

John, that is the point we are trying to get across to you.
The ''nun having visions in a cucumber patch'' is all that is required as it begs the question, why.
Why the vision, why not just be there picking cucumbers.
Does the vision have any relation to cucumbers, no of course not.
What does a ''vision'' mean, why does it happen to some and not others?

John, what you may consign to the ''mental state'' of someone, you have no way of knowing that what they are ''seeing'' is very real and a ''normal'' part of the human experience.
To tell someone that you have ''seen a vision'', is a very unusual thing to do, because of the negative judgement it brings. So when someone does this, it is because the experience is very powerful and very real. The power and reality of these experiences far outweighs the petty judgements that the telling brings.

We, and many others we have worked with have had many ''experiences'' and KNOW that what is experienced is REAL.
Not the limited idea of reality that would respond to the 3D system of proofs.

Again John, if you want to ''see'' further, you will have to broaden your mindset and intent, for you are capable of so much more, you just limit yourself with the fear of the mental state judgement.

Psychiatrists themselves do not have a common view on the subject they are supposed to be proficient in. They cannot give the answers, except for the artificial parameters that are erected that have proven to be just that, false.
John, check out the success rate for Psychiatry, it's pretty abysmal. Thats why the profession has turned to chemicals to save face. The truth is , they don't have a clue, what is ''normal'' or not, but if an individual dares to be different to the society around them, then they have a ''pill'' for that. ''Dumbing down'' is the term that comes to mind. May as well convince those that are ''different'', those that are individuals, that they have a ''mental'' problem.
You John, have adopted the same limited approach coming from the same limited mindset. There is a much BIGGER world out there than you are obviously prepared to recognise.

We know how we receive our universal information, we know it is valid, we know it works with a logic and perspective far greater than the 3D. It is a universal way to see the world and it is a view that shows that the 3D world is 180 degrees out of sync with the rest of the universe. The universe accepts what it is, what it experiences, the greater reality, you don't, you need proof.
We guess that just shows how insecure you and the rest of the establishment is. That is why the 3D world is beset with wars, selfishness, hate and the biggest of all FEAR.

When you have no fear, you will have experiences and you will trust what you feel and experience. Until that time you will be beset with doubts that no amount of proof will ever satisfy.

John, the universe will not harm you, you can trust what you feel, you can trust you, you can trust life.

Cheers.

Malai5.

John Page

In this context, a vision is an unexplained dream not shared by others (at the time of its occurence). We are all different. If you are having visions and you want me to buy into them, I suggest you start by answering the question you're still avoiding - how is it that you know what you know? Unless you can address this issue then your words have no credibility.
Experience may be real but you still haven't shown why your prognistications are more valid an explanation as to how those experiences arose than any other, esp. whether they are delusory.
Better than the Branch Davidians, Heavans Gate etc. Psychiatric research has come up with some very interesting findings about how and why we perceive what we do, more so than cult-like belief systems.
How? (For about the sixth time).
You have no basis on which to make these statements. How do you conclude my mindset is limited? How do you know how big I think the world is? What evidence do you have of insecurity on my part? Indeed, the dialog to this point indicates that your beliefs (all five of you) are fanciful and your manner of argumentation is disingenuous.

Answer the question.

Cheers, John

malai5

Dear John Page

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Page
[B]In this context, a vision is an unexplained dream not shared by others (at the time of its occurence). We are all different. If you are having visions and you want me to buy into them, I suggest you start by answering the question you're still avoiding - how is it that you know what you know? Unless you can address this issue then your words have no credibility.

Malai5.
Yes John we have had visions, including New York being turned upside down and information of the ''fall'' on Wall Street, more than twelve months before it happened.


Experience may be real but you still haven't shown why your prognistications are more valid an explanation as to how those experiences arose than any other, esp. whether they are delusory.

Malai5.
John, I have been a practicing psychic for many years, and have been ''intouch'' all my life. This is no delusion.

Better than the Branch Davidians, Heavans Gate etc. Psychiatric research has come up with some very interesting findings about how and why we perceive what we do, more so than cult-like belief systems.

Malai5.
What we receive is for the individual to see another perspective of the world we live in. It is also to help them to come to themselves in the understanding of themselves. It is universal material we access. This is not for a following, this is for the individual only.

How? (For about the sixth time).

Malai5.
We receive our information by the process of connecting to our cognitive/intuitive continuous thought process. Some call it channeling, but we access most of it by writing/typing the ''stream'' directly into the computer. We have refined the process, by refining ourselves to eliminate the interference of the ''little'' self 3D mind. We work in what we call, a ''blank space'', which is devoid of spurious conscious thought.


You have no basis on which to make these statements. How do you conclude my mindset is limited? How do you know how big I think the world is? What evidence do you have of insecurity on my part? Indeed, the dialog to this point indicates that your beliefs (all five of you) are fanciful and your manner of argumentation is disingenuous.

Malai5.
We conclude these things, because of what we do, we ''see'' more of you than you realise. You do not have the understanding we have, this we know about you also. The very fact that you need justification from others in an area which is subject only to the individual means that your doubts NEED to be quelled before you can go forward. We know that the process of discovery of information from outside the ''physical'' senses needs to be persued with the intent to access this information. Your doubts will be quelled along the way, but you have to ''give'' of youself and have trust and faith that there is something to be found in this direction. You have to ''give'' of yourself in order to get results. You have to surrender your doubts to the process and allow the pure intent to carry you through.
When you have made ''contact'', you may then ask your questions as to your ''doubts''. We have been refining and working at this process, solidly for over three years and have compiled reams of information on many subjects, 3D and universal. We know our contacts as one would close friends, who only have our best interests as their intent. Our contact is a two way, personalised interaction, with the highest of intelligence who know the human condition intimatly. Our contacts also know our every thought and even answer questions before they are asked, at times.

Answer the question.

Malai5.
Consider the question answered.

Cheers.

Malai5.

PS. There are only 3 of us,( M.A.M.)

John Page

In common parlance you are "making it up". Now I understand where your information is coming from. Do you know how you are making this information up?
That's what one of you thinks.

Cheers, John

malai5

Dear John Page.

By what stretch of the imagination can you say, we are making it up?
The articles are posted as they come through, we don't think like that, we don't phrase like that, we don't talk like that.
We would have thought that you would have picked the difference between the language of the articles and the answer posts and have seen they are not the same. Not very observant of you John.

If we were ''making it up'', it would not be obscure, we would not have to ''work it out'', as we had to do to get the understanding of the material. Those who read it are expected to ''work'' a bit to understand the ''full'' meaning of what the material has to say. Every time you read the articles, there will be more meaning.

John, read what Einstein had to say about ''inspired thought''/''intuition'' and you would understand that this icon of the sciences believed wholeheartedly in the process of intuition and the inspired thought. Without that, no theory of relativity.
You should read the accounts of Beethoven and the way he ''received'' his symphonies, bit by bit by inspired thought/intuition. He did not sit down and ''construct'' them. Read what he had to say, it is there to find, if you want to.
What do you think ''inspiration'' is? It is the thought without a ''thread'', the thought you don't consciously ''think''. It is the ''thought'' that just arrives out of the ''blue''.
So John, we don't make it up, we receive it, out of the ''blue'', and what is more to the point, we don't know what we will receive until we receive it. How could we, because we don't make it up.

The 3 of us work as one, each has a vital part to play, and as such, we are ALL in agreement about what we receive as we ''blind validate'' each other. By that we mean, that we have to tell each other what each other has received without being told, not even a hint. We have always been correct so we know that we 3 are connected to the same source and have the same understanding of the material. We are 3 individuals in our 3D selves, but 3 in one as our bigger/Higher selves. Our ''bigger selves/higher selves are what we are in when we work to bring the material through, our M.A.M. selves.

Cheers.

Malai5.

John Page

What evidence do you have that it anything but? (The rest of your post was just waffle to distract from your not answering the question).

Doesn't take much imagination - major religions are mostly made up. Why should I believe you when you don;t even respond in a candid manner. If you don;t know how you know what you know then say so and we can move on.

Cheers, John

malai5

Dear John Page.

John, you do not have to believe us when we say we know.
Those we bring information through for, the one's who ask questions about their lives, their departed loved one's, do not need convincing when information comes through that only they and the departed could know. John, they believe that we know what we are saying and what we are in contact with. Our universal contacts and the universal material we receive from them is the same, believable, because it is accurate when it is 3D information that comes to fruition, exactly as foretold.
The articles about the organisation of the individual and the universe, is from the same source, by the same method, so we believe, we know the truth of the matter.

John, we asked our ''upstairs'' contacts for something for you, as you seem pretty well convinced that we are not genuine in what we do. As you have offered nothing to prove we are wrong and insist that we prove ourselves to your satisfaction we would have thought that you would just ignore us, but you haven't, that we find strange. So we asked.

This is the question we asked:-

Something for John Page please, from the universe.

A) ''Lord Almighty. What we have here is an ego that does not want to deal with what it does not know.
It's difficult to climb over oneself when someone else offers another way of seeing.
It is not that you do or do not agree with Malai. It has nothing to do with it.
The information that comes through Malai is your biggest bug bear.
There is a bit of jealousy here we will say. You need to look a bit closer at yourself and ask why learning from a higher source is such a problem with you, when it is a very logical and practical way of viewing.
Your justifications in your answers are judgemental and 3D based.
This is So!''

So John, that is how the universe sees your position.

Cheers.

Malai5.

John Page

Agreed.
Still no evidence, eh, Malai?
I never said you weren't genuine, but I am unconvinced due to the absence of evidence and complete presence of waffle in your attempts to persuade me.
Nothing to prove wrong at this point!
No such insistence on my part but I'm not going to believe your claims until I see something that shows your thoughts have a strong correlation to reality. As I've said before, for all I know you're just making it up.
Thus spake Malai!
1. What Lord Almighty?
2. It is not my issue whether the thoughts are Malai's or not, I've met many people in business and religion who's riff is to spout this kind of content free argument to get them to believe you. Where is the evidence to show your thoughts are a better explanation for reality than anybody else's?
3. Malai, you have no evidence to suppose that I'm jealous. You're fishing here. The fact is you have been unable to impart any special knowledge here that is backed up with a demonstration that your view is better than anyone else's. This is not about my view, its about you claiming your view is priviledged.
4. You appeal to logic but make many badly formed claims, see immediately below.
Malai, who wrote the above, is not the universe so Malai is not making sense.

Cheers, John